19th  Thousand 


Price  50  Cents 


^>, 


WESTCOTT 


Revised  and  Edited 
by  the  Rt.  Rev.  A.  C  A.  HALL,  D.D. 

Bishop  of  ^  emiont 


■  <■   Hi      fi  I  -    T^ 


"CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES" 


is  also  made  on  fine  paper  handsomely  bound 
in  cloth,  at  $1.25  (by  mail  $1.35).  The  cloth 
bound  edition  should  find  a  place  on  the 
library  shelves  of  all  Churchmen. 


:i..a.<^  ./?, 


^V^  PRINCETON,  N.  J.  ^ 


Westcott*    Frank  N.    1858 

1915 
catholic  principles   as 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 


COPYRIGHT  BY 

THE  YOUNG  CHURCHMAN  CG. 
1902,  1916 


CORRIGENDA 

Page  72,  line  5.     Read  "covenant"  instead  of  "convenant." 
Page  80,  line  27.     Read  "drink  the  Cup"  instead  of  "drink 

this  Cup." 
Page  88,  line  16.     Read  "gift"  for  "gifts." 
Page  90,  line  8.    Omit  first  three  words. 
Page  146,  line  4.    Read  "Court"  for  "Courts." 
Page  146,  line  6.     Read  "at  Rome"  instead  of  "of  Rome." 
Page   190,  line  20.     Insert  closing  quotation  marks   after 

"Decretals." 
Page  226,  line  28.     Read  "teaching"  for  "teachings." 
Page  229,  line  28.     Read  "Leo"  for  "Leon." 
Page  280,  line  10.     Read  "a  communion"  instead  of  "the 

communion." 
Page   341,    line   20.      Read    "Roman    Question"    instead    of 

"Roman  Questions." 
Page  348,  line  1.     Read  "argument"  for  "arguments." 
Page  362,  line  29.   Read  "supposititious"  for  "suppositious." 


_.  ,,,«aa*«taW)"<^f- 


TO  THE   MEMORY  OF 
MY  FRIEND  AND  SENIOR  WARDEN 

THE  HONORABLE  WILLIAM  MARVIN 

EX-JUDGE  AND  SOMETIME  PROVISIONAL 
GOVERNOR  OF  FLORIDA,  UNDER  THE  IN- 
SPIRATION OF  WHOSE  JUDICIAL  CRITICISM 
AND  KINDLY  SYMPATHY  THIS  BOOK  WAS 
WRITTEN 

"Rest  eternal  grant  to  him,  O  Lord;  and 
ma}f  light  perpetual  shine  upon  him" 


CONTENTS 

C?HAPTEB  PAGE 

I. — What  is  the  Ambxican  Episcopal  Church?  1 

II. — The  Protestant  Theory  of  the  Church     -  18 

III. — The  Catholic  Theory  of  the  Church    -     -  39 

IV. — The  Catholic  Principle  of  Axtthority    -  55 

v. — Did  our  Lord  Establish  a  Church?    -    -  70 

VI. — The    Apostles'    Work    in    Founding    the 

Church 88 

VII. — The  Catholic  Church  and  the  Incarna- 
tion       101 

VIII. — The  Unity  of  the  Church  in  Space   -    -    -  120 
IX. — Founding  of  the  Anglo-Catholic  Church  132 
X. — The  Reformation  in  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land       144 

XI. — The    Catholic    Church    in    the    United 

States 163 

XII. — Papal   Supremacy    and   the    Holy   Scrip- 
tures          169 

XIII. — The  Growth  of  Papal  Claims     -     -     -     -  182 
XIV. — The   Catholic   Method   of   Defining   the 

Truth      -    -    - 198 

XV. — Papal  Infallibility 219 

XVI. — The  Ministry  of  the  Church 237 

XVII. — The  Apostolic  Succession  in  the  Angli- 
can  Church 255 

XVIII. — The  Sacramental  System 264 

XIX. — Sacrificial  Worship 288 

XX. — The  Rationale  of  Ritual 299 

XXI. — The  Catholicity  of  the  Prayer  Book    -    -  315 

XXII. — "Romanism"  in  the  Church 333 

XXIII.— Conclusion -  348 


NOTE  TO  REVISED  EDITION 

^J  FEW  years  ago,  when  the  lamented  author  was 
Jti  already  in  failing  health,  my  chaplain  for  many 
years,  the  Eev.  George  B.  Johnson,  went  through  this 
little  book  with  care,  suggesting  points  for  revision  or 
reconsideration.  Mr.  Westcott  was  not  well  enough  to 
take  the  matter  up.  And  now,  when  both  he  and  Mr. 
Johnson  have  passed  from  us,  the  publishers  have  asked 
me  to  incorporate  into  the  text  of  a  new  edition  such 
of  the  criticisms  as  it  seems  desirable  to  adopt. 

Mr.  Johnson's  judgment  of  the  book  was  that  it  was 
"the  best  handbook  on  Church  principles  we  have.  It 
is  thoroughly  readable;  it  is  not  too  long;  and  it  avoids 
the  arrogant  tone  toward  the  dissenter  which  mars  the 
usefulness  of  some  of  our  manuals."  Because  of  its  ex- 
cellence in  these  respects  he  thought  it  worth  while  to 
remove  some  inaccurate  or  doubtful  statements,  and  to 
improve  the  references.  His  own  exact  scholarship  is 
well  known. 

Citations  from  the  New  Testament  have  now  been 
conformed  to  the  Revised  Edition,  not  as  necessarily 
passing  judgment  on  its  text  or  translation,  but  to  avoid 


,  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

a  possible  objection  that  stress  was  laid  on  a  disputed 
passage. 

As  a  tribute  to  both  men  I  am  glad  to  have  a  hand 
in  bettering  the  work  on  which  they  both  spent  much 
labor,  and  which  they  hoped  might  have  wide  useful- 
ness. The  large  sale  of  the  earlier  editions  proves  this 
hope  to  have  been  well  founded.  A.  C.  A.  H. 

Burlington,  Vt.,  January,  1916. 


PREFACE 

3TJST  in  proportion  as  the  Anglican  Church  has 
been  content  to  act  as  if  she  were  Catholic,  and 
to  stir  up  the  gifts  within  her,  in  that  proportion  we 
find  she  is  so,  and  has  the  living  Spirit  in  her  body. 
What  is  reassuring  is  not  merely  that  the  faith  of  indi- 
viduals, whether  priests  or  people,  finds  its  response:  it 
is  not  merely  that  we  are  allowed  to  realize  our  Cath- 
olicity in  this  or  that  parish,  this  or  that  institution: 
.  .  .  it  is  true  further  and  beyond  this,  that  our  Church 
is  driven  in  her  formal  and  corporate  action  more  and 
more  to  take  her  stand  on  the  only  basis  which  is  ten- 
able and  enduring,  the  basis  of  catholic  principle." — 
Gore's  Roman  Catholic  Claims,  page  18, 

"The  wonderful  part  of  it  is,  that  all  this"  (the  re- 
vival of  Catholic  teaching  and  practice  in  the  Anglican 
Church)  "should  have  come  about  as  the  result  of  in- 
ternal causes;  of  the  working  out  of  their  own  thoughts 
and  principles,  and  not  from  any  external  persuasion 
or  influence." — Bagshawe's  Credentials  of  the  (Roman) 
Catholic  Church,  page  47. 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

CHAPTER  I 

WHAT  IS  THE  AMERICAN   EPISCOPAL   CHURCH  ? 

TT  IS  quite  generally  admitted  by  those  who 
watch  the  trend  of  the  religious  movements  of 
the  day,  that  that  body  of  Christians  which  is  com- 
monly known  as  the  American  Episcopal  Church 
has  come  to  occupy  a  position,  and  exert  an  in- 
fluence, quite  out  of  proportion  to  the  number  of 
its  members,  or  the  extent  of  its  organization.  By 
the  confession  of  both  its  friends  and  its  enemies, 
for  some  reason  or  another,  it  seems  to  be  like  "a 
city  set  on  a  hill  which  cannot  be  hid." 

It  is  to-day,  perhaps,  the  most  enthusiastically 
defended,  the  most  violently  attacked,  the  most 
frequently  imitated,  and  the  least  understood,  of 
all  religious  organizations  in  the  country.  There 
seems  to  be  something  about  it  which  challenges 
attention,  and  leads  its  friends  to  feel  an  enthusi- 


2  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

astic  love  for  it,  and  great  hope  for  its  future,  and 
those  who  are  not  its  friends,  to  feel  that  in  it  they 
have  no  common  sect  to  deal  with,  but  an  organ- 
ization and  a  system,  which  by  virtue  of  its  pe- 
culiar claims,  and  rapid  growth,  may  prove  a  for- 
midable power  in  winning  the  allegiance  of  Prot- 
estant Christians. 

There  is  something  about  the  Church,  the 
genius  of  its  system,  the  enthusiasm  of  its  de- 
fenders, the  spirit  which  animates  it,  the  self- 
assertive  way  it  teaches,  the  development  of  its 
work  and  worship  on  lines,  and  in  directions,  with 
which  Protestants  are  not  familiar,  for  which  the 
logic  of  neither  Protestants  nor  Romanists  can 
account;  and  which  therefore  challenges  their  at- 
tention and  their  criticism. 

Now  it  is  very  evident  that  those  outside  of 
it  do  not  altogether  understand  either  its  teaching, 
or  its  historic  position,  or  the  genius  of  its  life, 
from  the  fact  that  what  is  said  about  it  is  so 
contradictory.  It  is  said  to  be  too  narrow,  too 
broad;  too  inclusive  or  too  exclusive;  too  con- 
servative, too  liberal ;  too  mediaeval,  too  advanced ; 
too  formal,  too  lax;  too  dogmatic,  too  tolerant; 
too  Protestant,  too  Romish;  a  Church  in  which 
one  believes  too  much,  or  too  little;  which  makes? 
religion  too  hard,  or  too  easy  for  its  members. 
Occasionally  a  sympathetic  critic  attempts  to 
explain  its  life,  on  the  principle  that  its  cat- 
echetical system  interests  and  holds  the  young; 
or  that  its  liturgical  worship  attracts  people;  or 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  3 

that  it  is  eminently  respectable,  and  has  trained 
a  great  many  patriots  and  eminent  thinkers  in 
the  past. 

But  after  all,  such  explanation  confessedly 
fails  to  account  for  the  character  and  work  of  the 
Church  of  to-day. 

Now,  why  is  it  that  the  Episcopal  Church  is 
so  little  understood  by  either  Protestants  or  Ro- 
manists? For  the  very  simple  reason,  that  the 
Church  is  neither  Protestant  nor  Roman,  in  the 
ordinary  use  of  the  terms.  A  Protestant  can 
understand  a  Protestant  sect,  and  he  thinks  he 
understands  the  Roman  Catholic  Church;  but  a 
religious  body  which  is  neither  the  one  nor  the 
other  is  beyond  his  depth,  at  any  rate  beyond  his 
experience.  The  Protestant  assumes  that  anything 
in  the  Episcopal  Church  which  he  does  not  under- 
stand must  be  "Romish ;"  and  the  Roman  assumes 
that  anything  in  the  Episcopal  Church  which  he 
does  not  understand  must  be  "Protestant."  Each 
judges  from  his  own  standpoint,  and  experience, 
and  each  is  wrong.  The  Roman  cannot  conceive 
of  a  Catholicity  which  is  not  Roman,  nor  the 
Protestant  of  a  Reformed  Church  which  is  not 
Protestant ;  and  so  naturally  the  Episcopal  Church 
is  between  two  fires;  is  repudiated  by  both,  be- 
cause she  will  not  assimilate  with  either,  and  ac- 
cept their  own  definitions  of  what  the  Christian 
Church  ought  to  be. 

!N^ow  let  us  suppose  that  a  Protestant  who  is 
thoughtful   and  intelligent,   recognizing  the   fact 


4  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

that  the  Episcopal  Church  is  to  him  in  a  sense 
unique,  has  a  sincere  desire  to  study  it  for  himself, 
and  find  out,  if  possible,  what  it  really  is.  Sup- 
pose such  a  man,  laying  aside  his  prejudices,  ap- 
proaches the  Church  as  a  sympathetic  learner, 
rather  than  as  a  hostile  critic. 

What  will  he  find?  What  features  of  the 
Church's  organization,  history,  life,  and  work,  will 
be  most  apt  to  impress  him,  on  a  merely  super- 
ficial inspection?  First,  he  will  find,  that  the 
Church  is  growing  in  the  centres  of  population 
with  considerable  rapidity.  He  will  find  that  she 
receives  over  twenty  thousand  converts  from  the 
Protestant  denominations,  and  between  thirty  and 
forty  of  their  ministers  each  year,  and  that  in  ten 
years  she  has  received  over  three  hundred  and 
fifty  ministers  from  various  religious  bodies,  and 
the  drift  is  practically  all  one  way.  (See  notes 
at  the  end  of  this  chapter.) 

These  clerical  converts  are  often  the  most  in- 
telligent of  their  class,  men  who  come  at  the  cost 
of  considerable  self-sacrifice,  knowing  that  if  they 
are  to  enter  the  ministry  of  the  Church,  they  must 
be  confirmed,  and  begin  at  the  beginning  in  the 
order  of  deacons,  before  they  can  be  made  Priests. 
The  remarkable  fact  about  this  growth  is  not  its 
rapidity,  but  the  fact  that  it  takes  place  and  con- 
stantly increases,  apparently  as  the  Church's 
special  claims  are  better  understood,  and  more 
clearly  taught;  claims  which  seem  narrow,  arro- 
gant, and  exclusive,  to  the  Protestant,  and  which 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  .  5 

ought  therefore  rather  to  offend  intelligent  men, 
and  keep  them  out  of  the  Church,  than  to  attract 
and  hold  them,  unless  the  claims  are  true.  More- 
over, the  Church  shows  most  remarkable  powers  of 
assimilation;  for,  though  these  clerical  converts 
represent  all  sorts  of  creeds,  they  soon  come  to  ac- 
cept the  claims  of  the  Church,  and  for  the  most 
part  defend  them  as  heartily  as  her  own  children. 
The  Church  seems  to  have  a  wonderful  way  of  con- 
vincing these  men  that  she  is  right;  and  she  pro- 
ceeds to  mould  them  to  her  ideas,  while  they  have 
little  or  no  effect  in  moulding  her  to  their  ideas. 

The  Protestant  will  also  discover,  that  a  ma- 
jority of  the  Church's  intelligent  laymen  believe 
thoroughly  in  their  Church;  are  devoted  to  her 
interests  and  work,  and  at  rest  in  their  acceptance 
of  her  Faith.  For  example,  in  a  small  town 
where  there  are  large  and  fine  Protestant  churches, 
which  represent  brilliant  preaching,  and  much 
social  advantage,  a  Churchman  will  still  prefer 
(if  there  is  no  larger  church)  even  a  little  mission 
of  his  own.  Church,  plain  and  outwardly  unattract- 
ive, conducted  possibly  by  a  priest  of  veiy  mod- 
erate ability,  and  he  never  seems  to  care  to  go 
elsewhere.  He  is  contented  and  happy,  appar- 
ently believing  that  he  receives  something  in  his 
little  mission  church,  which  Protestants  do  not; 
and  that  which  he  finds  more  than  makes  up  to 
him  for  the  loss  of  the  intellectual  and  social  ad- 
vantages, which  are  offered  elsewhere.  His  loy- 
alty to  his  Church  seems,  for  some  reason  which 


6  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

is  not  apparent,  to  be  a  matter  of  vital  principle, 
rather  than  a  matter  of  taste  or  choice.  Surely 
there  must  be  some  reason  for  this,  some  very  at- 
tractive power,  to  hold  men  to  the  Church. 

The  Protestant  will  also  find  in  the  Church, 
something  which  is  very  perplexing.  That  this 
Church  which  as  he  supposed  was  so  narrow,  is 
as  a  matter  of  fact  amazingly  broad  and  Catholic; 
so  much  so,  that  he  is  confused  at  first  by  what  he 
finds.  For  he  soon  discovers  that  the  Church  not 
only  holds  and  teaches  the  fractions  of  truth 
taught  by  his  own  sect,  but  that  she  teaches  the 
truths  held  by  all  Protestant  sects  put  together; 
so  that  in  coming  into  the  Church,  he  really  gives 
up  nothing,  but  simply  widens  his  range  of  be- 
lief immensely.  He  finds  that  with  the  Presby- 
terians, the  Church  holds  an  order  of  presbyters, 
but  refuses  to  deny  the  historic  character  of 
Episcopacy ;  that  with  the  Methodists,  she  believes 
in  the  necessity  of  conversion  and  personal  holi- 
ness, but  refuses  to  deny  the  necessity  of  sacra- 
mental grace ;  with  the  Baptists,  she  requires  faith 
in  adults  as  a  condition  of  Baptism,  and  baptizes 
by  immersion  whenever  immersion  is  desired,  but 
refuses  to  rule  children  out  of  God's  Family,  the 
Church;  with  the  Unitarians,  she  believes  that 
there  is  but  one  God,  but  refuses  to  deny  that  in 
that  unity  there  is  a  tri-personality ;  with  the 
Friends,  she  believes  in  silent  meetings,  which  she 
calls  retreats,  meditations,  or  quiet  days,  in  the 
baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  in  simplicity  of 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  7 

life;  but  she  refuses  to  reject  the  visible  Church, 
which  the  Lord  Himself  creates  and  sends,  or  the 
Sacraments  which  He  has  ordained.  In  short,  the 
Protestant  finds  that  just  so  far  as  any  sect  affirms 
any  truth  positively,  the  Church  holds  that  truth 
also;  but  that  what  the  Church  rejects,  is  simply 
the  protestant  denials  of  truth.  But  more  than 
this :  the  Protestant  finds  that  the  Church  holds 
and  teaches,  with  the  truths  with  which  he  is 
familiar,  many  others  with  which  he  is  not  famil- 
iar, and'  which  he  has  been  in  the  habit  of  con- 
sidering false  or  superstitious.  Truths  about  the 
Church,  its  nature,  history,  and  doctrine,  which 
he  always  thought  were  Roman  Catholic  errors. 
Truths  which  are  entirely  foreign  to  the  Protestant 
system  as  sucL  And  yet  most  Churchmen  seem 
to  take  these  doctrines  as  a  matter  of  course,  and 
to  be  ready  and  glad  to  give  both  scriptural  and 
historic  reasons  why  they  believe  them,  and  do 
not  seem  in  the  least  inclined  to  go  over  to  the 
Roman  Church,  because  they  hold  them.  This  is 
a  very  puzzling  fact  to  the  Protestant,  this  discov- 
ery that  truth  is  by  no  means  limited  to  Protestant- 
ism, and  that  a  Church  can  hold  many  truths  in 
common  with  Romanists,  and  yet  apparently  have 
the  strongest  possible  objections  to  adopting  the 
Roman  system. 

To  the  Protestant  the  Church  seems  in  many 
ways  to  be  an  imitation  of  Rome,  and  he  thinks 
that  its  members  must  or  ought  to  go  to  Rome, 
but  for  some  reason  or  another  they  do  not,  tOj; 


8  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

anj  marked  extent.  If  the  Church,  is  obviously 
not  Protestant,  in  the  ordinary  sense,  it  is  equally 
evident  that  she  is  not  Eoman.  The  Protestant 
is  puzzled  at  the  breadth  of  truth  which  he  finds 
in  the  Episcopal  Church,  its  vigorous  grasp  of 
essential  truths,  and  its  broad  tolerance  of  differ- 
ences of  opinion  in  matters  which  are  not  essential. 

Then,  too,  the  Protestant  is  puzzled  by  the 
discovery  that  the  Church  is  such  a  remarkable 
combination  of  the  old  and  the  new.  So  far  as  he 
can  see,  it  is  ready  to  meet  new  issues,  to  adapt 
itself  to  the  necessities  of  the  age.  It  contains 
many  of  the  most  advanced  thinkers  along  certain 
lines.  It  is  employing  all  sorts  of  means,  to  reach 
all  sorts  of  men.  It  is  not  the  least  afraid  to 
adopt  any  truth  which  modem  science  or  higher 
criticism  may  happen  to  demonstrate. 

In  certain  congested  districts  of  large  cities 
it  is  the  only  religious  body  which  seems  to  suc- 
ceed in  winning  and  holding  men.  It  has  all 
sorts  of  services  for  all  sorts  of  people,  from  re- 
vivals, which  it  calls  missions,  and  silent  meet- 
ings, which  it  calls  meditations,  up  to  the  elab- 
orate ritual  of  a  High  Celebration.  It  has  an 
endless  number  of  guilds,  fraternities,  brother- 
hoods, and  sisterhoods,  for  doing  various  kinds 
of  work,  for  meeting  the  needs  of  all  sorts  of 
temperaments.  Its  clergy  are  interested  in  mu- 
nicipal reforms,  and  public  charities,  and  yet  with 
all  its  modem,  up-to^dale  spirit,  and  organization, 
there  is  a  strange  mixture  of  that  which  is  old. 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  9 

and  by  Protestants  thought  to  be  effete.  Some- 
how Churchmen  seem  to  believe  that  their  Church 
is  as  old  as  Christianity ;  that  it  inherits  from  an 
ancient  past  the  essentials  of  doctrine,  organiza- 
tion, and  custom,  which  are  practically  change- 
less. In  an  Episcopal  Church  the  Protestant  often 
finds  the  arrangements  and  symbols,  which  he 
would  have  found  anywhere  in  the  Christian  world, 
many  centuries  before  such  a  thing  as  Protestant- 
ism was  ever  heard  of. 

He  sees  the  high  altar,  central  in  position,  in  a 
sanctuary  made  beautiful  with  fonn  and  color  and 
costly  fabrics,  in  honor  of  Him,  who.  Churchmen 
believe,  comes  to  them  in  the  Blessed  Sacrament. 

On  the  Altar  he  sees  the  cross,  the  lights,  and 
the  flowers,  symbols  of  his  salvation.  The  priests 
wear  official  vestments,  the  service  is  liturgical 
and  dignified;  and  in  its  dignity  and  orderliness, 
is  eloquent  of  a  reverent  faith  in  the  unseen  Pres- 
ence of  God.  He  finds  that  the  very  words  of  the 
liturgy  are  many  of  them  over  a  thousand  or 
fifteen  hundred  years  old;  that  they  have  the 
stamp  of  no  one  man,  and  no  one  age,  but  repre- 
sent the  cumulative  devotion  of  many  centuries. 
That  in  all  this  the  Church's  ways  and  organiza- 
tion are  not  of  her  own  making,  are  hers,  not  by 
adoption  from  another  system,  but  by  inheritance 
from  her  own  past.  In  some  parish  he  may  hear 
a  most  evangelical  gospel  sermon,  and  yet  see 
candles  on  the  Altar,  and  hear  a  prayer  for  some 
departed  soul ;   and  all  this  curious  combination 


10  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

of  that  which  is  new  and  that  which  is  old,  is 
very  strange  to  him  at  first.  Most  certainly  the 
Church  cannot  be  Protestant,  in  the  ordinary  sense 
of  the  word. 

Then,  too,  he  notices  that  there  are  different 
schools  of  thought  in  the  Church,  which  at  times 
seem  to  be  more  or  less  at  variance  with  each 
other;  and  jet  they  remain  in  the  Church,  and 
are  devoted  to  it,  whereas  such  differences  would 
split  a  Protestant  sect  all  to  pieces. 

What  is  it  that  holds  them  together?  More- 
over, if  any  one  school  tries  to  dominate  the 
Church,  and  mould  it  to  its  convictions,  it  fails. 
The  Church  moulds  men,  and  is  not  materially 
moulded  by  them;  while,  at  the  same  time,  she 
claims  as  her  own,  all  that  is  positive  and  true 
in  each  school  of  thought,  rejecting  nothing  but 
their  negations  and  denials,  and  finds  a  place  for 
them  in  her  household.  She  is  heartily  in  sym- 
pathy with  the  personal  piety  and  evangelical 
orthodoxy  of  the  Low  Churchman,  with  the  learn- 
ing and  scientific  scholarship,  the  broad-minded- 
ness of  the  Broad  Churchman,  with  the  High 
Churchman's  appreciation  of  her  historic  position 
and  claims,  with  the  Ritualist's  recognition  of 
symbolical  ritual  as  a  necessary  expression  of 
truth;  and  yet  she  herself  is  not  limited  to  the 
position  of  any  party,  but  is  Catholic;  in  that  she 
holds  all  truths  of  all  schools,  repudiating  indi- 
viduals only  when  they  become  protesters,  or  de- 
niers,  or  impugners,  of  her  Catholic  Faith. 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  1 1 

Then  also  there  is  another  conspicuous  fact 
which  the  Protestant  will  observe,  and  will  no 
doubt  resent  as  arrogance,  namely,  that  the  Church 
speaks  as  one  having  authority ;  with  a  certain  as- 
surance of  conviction  that  she  is  sent  to  teach, 
which  the  Protestant  sects  do  not  adopt,  or  rather 
do  not  seem  to  feel.  The  very  fact  that  the  Church 
speaks  as  if  she  had  authority  so  to  speak,  while 
it  is  no  doubt  irritating  to  others,  is  after  all  a 
phenomenon  which  must  be  accounted  for  in  some 
way.  The  Church  is  constantly  denounced  for  its 
arrogant  tone ;  but  surely,  any  system  which  comes 
from  God,  and  holds  a  commission  to  speak  in 
His  ISTame,  must  speak  with  authority.  Our  Lord 
spake  not  as  the  Pharisees,  "but  as  one  having 
authority" ;  and  to  His  Church  He  said,  "He  that 
heareth  you  heareth  Me."  JSTow  Protestants,  no 
doubt,  speak  with  the  force  of  a  conviction  that 
they  are  right  in  their  belief,  but  as  a  rule  no 
Protestant  sect  teaches  as  if  it  held  commission 
to  teach  its  own  creed  by  the  authority  of  Christ 
through  a  special  historic  commission  so  to  do. 

Any  Protestant  sect  can  say,  "If  you  refuse 
to  hear  my  teaching,  you  will  not  have  the  right 
views  of  Bible  Truth,"  but  no  Protestant  sect  can 
possibly  say,  "If  you  refuse  to  hear  my  teaching, 
you  oppose  our  Lord  Himself,  because  He  sent 
me  to  teach  you."  Only  the  Catholic  Church  can 
say  this.  The  fact  that  Protestants  are  often  so 
apologetic  in  their  teaching,  lays  their  whole  system 


12  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

open  to  tlie  suspicion  that  it  lacks  authority,  and 
that  they  are  quite  conscious  of  this  fact. 

So  if,  as  we  have  said,  the  Protestant  will  take 
pains  to  study  the  Church,  he  will  find  not  only 
that  the  popular  estimate  of  it  is  a  mistaken  one, 
distorted  by  a  lot  of  radical  misconceptions,  but 
also  that  the  Church  in  its  life,  organization,  and 
attitude  toward  Protestants,  is  certainly  unaccount- 
able from  the  Protestant  standpoint. 

l^ow,  suppose  a  Koman  Catholic  was  to  study 
the  Church  from  the  inside.  What  would  he  find  ? 
He  would  find,  perhaps  to  his  very  great  surprise, 
that  in  doctrine,  custom,  and  religious  life,  the 
Church  is  remarkably  ''Catholic,"  and  that  there 
is  much  similarity  to  the  Roman  Church,  in  some 
matters. 

He  would  assume  that  all  this  was  but  an  imi- 
tation of  the  Roman  Church,  which  must  event- 
ually end  in  union  with  Rome.  But  again,  to  his 
great  surprise,  he  finds,  that  notwithstanding  this 
Catholic  doctrine,  practice,  and  life,  in  the  Epis- 
copal Church,  Churchmen  are  absolutely  united 
in  repudiating  the  supremacy  and  infallibility  of 
the  Pope  of  Rome,  and  in  rejecting  certain  Roman 
errors  of  doctrine;  that  conversions  to  Rome  are 
decreasing  instead  of  increasing,  and  that  Church- 
men seem  to  be  happy  and  contented  where  they 
are,  and  that  they  are  turning  out  to  be  the  worst 
rivals  Rome  has  to  deal  with,  and  her  most  relent- 
less opponents,  whenever  she  asserts  her  exclusive 
claim  to  be  the  whole  Catholic   Church.     Why 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  13 

should  there  be  in  the  Church  so  much  that  is 
Catholic,  and  yet  so  strong  an  opposition  to  that 
which  is  Papal? 

How  can  the  Catholic  type  of  religious  life 
exist  and  flourish  in  what  he  believes  to  be  a 
Protestant  sect  ?  Where  does  it  come  from  ?  All 
this  is  very  amazing  to  him,  and  he  cannot  com- 
prehend it.  For  example,  the  "Rev.  J.  B.-  Bag- 
shawe,  Roman  Catholic,  writing  in  the  "Creden- 
tials of  the  Catholic  Church"  (page  47),  of  the 
revival  of  Catholic  life  and  doctrine  in  the  Church 
of  England,  says:  "The  wonderful  part  of  it  is, 
that  all  this  should  have  come  about  as  the  result 
of  internal  causes,  of  the  working  out  of  their  own 
thoughts  and  principles,  and  not  from  any  external 
persuasion  or  influence." 

Now  all  this  indicates  that  the  characteristic 
teaching  and  life  of  the  Church  cannot  be  ex- 
plained from  the  Roman  or  the  Protestant  stand- 
point ;  and  that  if  these  things  are  to  be  understood 
at  all,  it  must  be  on  the  supposition  that  that  doc- 
trine, and  habit  of  thought,  and  type  of  life  which 
makes  the  Church  what  it  is,  is  neither  Roman, 
nor  Protestant. 

What  is  it?  Is  there  any  one  word  which 
defines  the  nature  of  the  Episcopal  Church,  and 
gives  the  key  to  the  situation?  Any  one  term, 
which  defines  her  position  and  claims?  A 
Churchman  will  answer.  Yes,  there  is,  and  that 
word  is  Catholicity.  For  true  Catholicity  is 
neither   Roman,   nor   Protestant;   but   a   system. 


14  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

which  holds  the  truths  of  both  Protestantism  and 
Romanism,  while  it  rejects  the  errors  of  each. 

ISTow  to  assert  that  the  Episcopal  Church  is, 
hj  the  providence  of  God,  the  Catholic  Church  in 
the  United  States,  and  that  its  individuality  and 
peculiar  characteristics  are  to  be  accounted  for  on 
this  supposition,  is  to  assert  a  fact  which  cannot 
be  understood  without  considerable  knowledge  of 
Church  history  and  Church  doctrine,  and  the  ef- 
fort to  overcome  old  prejudices  and  old  miscon- 
ceptions. 

In  the  first  place,  the  very  word  Catholic 
prejudices  the  Protestant  against  the  Church,  be- 
cause to  him  it  has  always  meant  Roman  Catholic ; 
and  it  is  associated  in  his  mind  with  what  he  calls 
Popery  and  superstition.  He  does  not  know  that 
Catholic  was  the  universal  name  for  the  Christian 
Church  for  centuries  before  the  modem  papal 
claims,  and  Roman  errors  of  doctrine,  were  ever 
heard  of;  and  for  fifteen  hundred  years  before 
any  one  of  the  modem  Protestant  denominations 
came  into  existence;  so  that  to  be  a  Catholic  in 
the  primitive  and  universal  sense  of  the  word,  is 
to  be  neither  a  Protestant,  nor  a  Romanist. 

Now  to  understand  fully  what  this  means,  we 
have  to  study  three  great  theories,  as  to  the  nature 
and  constitution  of  the  Christian  Church ;  the  Prot- 
estant, the  Catholic,  and  the  Roman  Catholic ;  and 
to  determine,  if  possible,  which  one  has  the  evi- 
dence of  Scripture  and  history  in  its  favor. 


NOTES  ON  THE  GROWTH  OF  THE  CHURCH 

From  1850  to  1859  the  communicants  of  the  Church 
had  increased  59  per  cent.;  in  the  war  period,  reckoning 
from  1859  to  1868,  the  increase  fell  to  27  per  cent.;  from 
1868  to  1877,  it  rose  to  the  enormous  amount  of  61.5  per 
cent.;  from  1877  to  1886,  it  was  43  per  cent.;  from  1886 
to  1895,  it  remained  practically  steady  at  45.5  per  cent. 
No  other  Christian  body  in  the  country  has  maintained  any 
such  percentage  of  progress,  unless  by  immigration,  of 
which  our  Church  has  had  hardly  any. 

[From  the  Church  Standard,  Feb.  18th,  1899.] 

That  the  Church  has  grown  at  the  expense  of  other 
iSodies  is  an  admitted  fact.  The  Andover  Congregational 
Review  a  few  years  ago  said  that  "a  wave  of  Episcopacy  is 
upon  us." 

The  Roman  Catholic  News  lately  confessed  that  "the 
gain  of  the  Episcopalians  in  this  country,  steady,  onward, 
undeniable,  and  that  at  the  expense  of  the  denominations 
commonly  called  evangelical,  is  one  of  the  remarkable  char- 
acteristics of  our  times." 

So  the  (Roman)  Catholic  Review:  "Statistics  have 
shown  that  the  Episcopalian  body  is  the  only  Protestant 
one  that  is  growing  in  numbers  in  the  United  States,  and 
that  it  is  growing  rapidly,  and  at  the  expense,  of  course, 
of  the  other  Protestant"  bodies — and  of  the  Roman  Cath- 
olic as  well. 

The  Methodist  Christian  Advocate  (Buffalo)  says: 
"While  other  denominations  and  societies  are  paying  evan- 
gelists and  brass  bands  to  evangelize  the  people,  the  Episco- 


16  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

palians  are  doing  the  effective  work  and  constantly  gain- 
ing in  numbers  and  strength." 

The  Rev.  Dr.  Waffle  (Baptist),  in  the  Christian  En- 
quirer, says:  "What  are  the  reasons  for  this  superior 
growth?  This  growth  is  due  mainly  to  the  confidence, 
assurance,  and  courage  of  the  Episcopalian  leaders.  They 
believe  that  theirs  is  'the  Church,'  and  are  not  slow  to 
assert  their  belief.  That  very  assurance  is  their  tower  of 
strength." 

A  Roman  Catholic  journal,  quoted  by  the  Archbishop 
of  York:  "The  Church  of  England  has  sucked  into  itself, 
or  at  all  events  sucked  out  of  their  faith,  a  vast  number 
of  (Roman)  Catholics  born  and  educated  in  this  land" 
( England ) . 

Sir  Walter  Besant,  in  an  article  in  The  Queen,  gives 
figures  showing  the  great  increase  of  Protestants  over 
Roman  Catholics  in  the  past;  and  says  that,  at  the  same 
rate  of  increase,  in  one  hundred  years  the  dominant  Christ- 
ian Church  will  be  the  Anglican  and  not  the  Roman,  and 
that  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  and  not  the  Bishop  of 
Rome,  will  be  the  dominant  head  of  Christendom. 

Testimony  like  the  foregoing  might  be  multiplied.  It 
shows  that  the  growth  of  the  Church  is  recognized  beyond 
us.    But  from  such  admissions  let  us  come  to  the  figures.    * 

Let  us  take  one  of  our  New  York  city  parishes — St. 
George's.  The  Confirmation  class  in  1896  numbered  208. 
Of  these  89  were  Church  people,  52  Lutherans,  28  Presby- 
terians, 19  Roman  Catholics,  7  Methodists,  13  scattering. 
Their  class  in  1897  numbered  202  persons.  Of  these  126 
were  Church  people,  17  Lutherans,  16  Presbyterians,  10 
Roman  Catholics,  8  Methodists,  9  scattering,  16  no  church. 

Among  the  confirmed  in  30  New  York  city  parishes  in 
1896  were  400  who  had  been  brought  up  Dissenters.  The 
Confirmation  class  in  a  Philadelphia  parish  in  1896  had 
French,  Germans,  Syrians,  Swedes,  Norwegians,  Scotch, 
English,  Finns,  and  Americans — 9  nationalities. 

This  return  of  Dissenters  is  going  on  all  over  the 
country.  But  the  drift  to  the  Church  is  not  confined  to  the 
laymen.  It  is  just  as  marked  among  their  ministers  as  the 
following  table  will  show. 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 


17 


1888.  '89.  '90.  '91.  '92.  '93.  '94.  '95.  '96.  '97. 


Methodist    ... 

Baptist 

Roman  Cath ; 
Presbyterian 
Congregat'nal 
Reformed  .. . 
Lutiieran  .  .  . 
Ref.  Episcopal 
Adventist  . . 
Unitarian  .  . 
Scattering    . 


Totals 


8 
5 
4 
3 

2 

1 
1 
1 
0 
0 
2 


11     14 
3       5 


4 
3 
5 
6 
0 
3 
1 
1 
0 


2 
10 
12 
5 
4 
1 
1 
2 
4 


12 

13 

13 

8 

9 

5 

8 

4 

2 

2 

2 

1 

2 

8 

7 

6 

2 

5 

0 

7 

7 

4 

3 

2 

0 

1 

2 

1 

1 

0 

0 

1 

1 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

2 

11 

2 

2 

4 

1 

.  .   27       37     60     22     43     42     41     38     21     21 
This  list  is  not  official,  and  therefore  some  accessions 
may  have  been  overlooked,  others  may  not  have  been  re- 
ported.— Rev.  J.  8.  Hartzell. 


CHAPTER  II 

THE  PROTESTANT  THEORY  OF  THE  CHURCH 

CHE  bane  of  religious  controversy  has  always 
been  the  fact  that  men  generally  insist  in 
making  religious  discussions  personal  matters. 
The  average  man  assumes  that  if  you  question  his 
belief  in  any  particular,  somehow,  his  personal 
character  and  dignity  are  at  stake;  and  that  to 
impugn  his  belief  is  to  be  "uncharitable"  to  him. 
l^ow  in  attempting  to  define  and  point  out  the 
mistakes  of  the  Protestant  system  (if  any  system 
based  on  negation  can  be  properly  called  a  sys- 
tem), it  must  be  constantly  remembered  that  we 
are  dealing  with  systems,  and  not  with  the  personal 
character  of  the  individuals  who  support  the  sys- 
tems. Very  devout,  earnest,  and  Christ-like  men 
have  in  every  age  advocated  and  supported  er- 
roneous creeds;  and  surely  one  can  deal  frankly 
with  error,  and  yet  at  the  same  time  admire  and 
respect  the  personal  holiness  of  men  who  honestly 
believe  it. 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  19 

Moreover,  to  assert  that  any  given  system  is 
erroneous  and  hostile  to  the  best  interests  of  truth, 
is  by  no  means  to  exclude  the  working  of  God's 
grace  from  the  hearts  of  those  who  are  trained  un- 
der that  system.  God,  as  we  believe,  offers  grace 
under  certain  conditions,  and  through  certain 
means,  which  we  are  bound  to  accept  in  obedience 
to  Him.  But  He  is  not  necessarily  limited  by 
the  conditions  which  He  imposes  upon  us,  in  His 
gifts  to  those  who  do  not  understand  His  condi- 
tions; and  no  Catholic  Churchman  will  for  one 
moment  question  the  fact,  that  prevenient  (non- 
sacramental)  and  baptismal  grace,  often  produce 
a  very  high  order  of  Christian  character  in  indi- 
viduals, without  any  reference  to  the  ecclesiastical 
system  which  they  adopt.  It  is  perhaps  difficult 
to  persuade  a  man  that  because  you  point  out  the 
mistakes  of  his  system,  you  are  not  necessarily 
making  an  attack  upon  him;  but  in  the  argument 
which  we  are  about  to  present,  we  must  once  and 
for  all  insist  that  we  are  to  consider  facts  and  sys- 
tems on  their  own  intrinsic  merits;  and  that  the 
personal  element  does  not  enter  into  the  question : 
that  is,  not  if  we  are  to  come  to  any  logical  and 
just  conclusion. 

Doubtless  when  a  man  has  made  an  earnest 
and  sincere  effort  to  find  the  truth  of  God,  and 
to  live  in  accordance  with  it,  he  will  ultimately  be 
judged  in  accordance  with  his  sincerity  of  purpose. 
But  such  sincerity  of  purpose  justifies  nobody  in 
holding  error,  if  God  puts  the  truth  within  his 


20  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

reach ;  and  it  can  only  be  a  kindness  to  the  man  to 
point  out  his  error,  while  at  the  same  time  you 
wholly  respect  his  sincerity  of  purpose,  and  in  so 
doing,  the  charge  of  "uncharitableness"  is  out  of 
place. 

In  the  United  States  of  America,  a  large  ma- 
jority of  people  who  profess  to  have  any  religious 
belief  call  themselves  Protestants;  and  ordinarily 
everyone  who  is  not  a  Roman  Catholic  is  supposed 
to  be  a  Protestant.  Now,  quite  apart  from  the 
special  tenets  of  any  individual  Protestant  sect, 
there  is  what  may  be  called  the  Protestant  theory 
of  the  Church ;  a  way  of  looking  at  religious  mat- 
ters which  is  shared  by  most  Protestants ;  a  certain 
conception  of  so-called  "Protestant  principles," 
which  they  hold  in  common,  and  which  they  ab- 
sorb from  infancy,  and  which  mould  their  habits 
of  thought.  Ask  any  intelligent  Protestant  to  in- 
form you  what  Protestantism  is,  and  he  will  prob- 
ably tell  you  something  like  this : 

"Protestantism  originated  as  a  protest  against 
formalism  in  religion,  and  to  vindicate  the  right 
of  private  judgment.  The  liberty  of  the  individ- 
ual Christian  to  make  up  his  own  faith  or  belief 
out  of  the  Bible,  was  opposed^to  the  authority  of 
priestcraft,  and  mediaeval  superstition.  Protest- 
antism also  vindicated  the  right  of  freedom  of 
thought  in  religious  matters,  as  opposed  to  the 
dogmas  and  creeds  of  the  Church;  and  it  estab- 
lished the  necessity  of  heart  religion,  as  opposed  to 
formalism  and  ceremonial  worship.     The  Chris- 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  21 

tian  life  begins  with  the  conversion  of  the  individ- 
ual man  bj  the  Holy  Spirit ;  and  a  number  of  con- 
verted men,  finding  that  they  take  the  same  views 
of  the  Bible,  organize  themselves  into  Churches, 
which  are  voluntary  associations  for  religious  pur- 
poses. One  of  these  churches  may  happen  to  be 
nearer  the  scriptural  model  than  some  others,  but 
all  of  them  are  organized  on  the  same  principle, 
by  different  men,  at  different  times,  and  no  one 
of  them  can  claim  any  superior  authority  over 
the  others.  All  of  them  do  good  work,  and  produce 
a  certain  type  of  Christian  character,  and  their 
members  live  good  lives;  and  so  God  shows  His 
approval  of  all,  and  any  exclusiveness  on  the  part 
of  any  one  would  be  merely  bigotry.  Personal 
religion  is  the  object  of  Christianity,  and  forms 
and  sacraments  and  ceremonies  are  non-essential, 
and  are  apt  to  interfere  between  the  soul  and  God. 
The  original  Church,  if  there  ever  was  one,  became 
hopelessly  corrupt  very  soon  after  the  days  of  the 
Apostles,  and  during  the  Middle  Ages  Christianity 
was  practically  lost;  and  evangelical  truth  was 
brought  to  light  again  by  the  Protestant  Eeform- 
ers. 

"The  true  Church  is  invisible,"  according  to 
this  idea,  "because  it  is  composed  only  of  holy 
people;  and  God  alone  knows  who  these  are,  be- 
cause He  alone  can  see  into  the  hearts  of  men.  So 
far  as  the  Church  is  visible,  it  is  composed  of  all 
denominations  of  Christians  taken  together.  The 
only  unity  of  the  Church  which  is  possible,  is  heart 


22  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

unity  among  Christians,  which,  is  promoted  by 
imion  meetings;  and  as  long  as  Christians  are 
one  at  heart,  we  can  agree  to  differ,  and  let  each 
man  go  where  he  feels  inclined.  Creeds  hamper 
thought,  and  interfere  with  spiritual  freedom. 
The  Bible  and  the  Bible  only  is  the  religion  of 
Protestants ;  and  the  heart  religion  of  the  country 
is  in  the  evangelical  Protestant  Churches,  which 
do  not  depend  on  forms  and  ceremonies  for- their 
attraction,  but  on  the  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit." 

Without  the  slightest  intention  to  misrepresent 
the  belief  of  Protestants,  we  think  this  is  a  fair 
statement  of  it;  at  any  rate,  it  is  what  one  con- 
stantly hears  in  religious  discussions. 

Now  if  anyone  ventures  to  present  an  argu- 
ment favoring  the  claims  of  any  one  sect  or 
Church,  the  Protestant  usually  replies  that  "forms 
and  organizations  are  of  no  consequence,  so  long  as 
a  man's  heart  and  life  are  all  right."  From  his 
standpoint  this  answer  is  most  natural,  and  so  far 
as  his  own.  position  goes,  it  is  in  one  sense  true; 
for  he  knows  quite  well,  that  all  Protestant  sects 
were  by  their  own  confession  founded  by  men  in 
modern  times,  were  merely  of  human  origin,  and 
so  no  one  of  them  can  claim  exclusive  authority, 
and  each  must  concede  to  the  others  the  privileges 
it  claims  for  itself,  and  that  a  certain  type  of  Chris- 
tian character  is  produced  by  and  seems  to  thrive 
under  them  all,  irrespective  of  origin,  form,  or- 
ganization, or  creed.  Moreover,  no  one  of  them 
claims  to  give  any  necessary  sacramental  grace. 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  23 

So  it  is  not  at  all  surprising  that  to  the  Protestant 
Christian,  with  his  limited  knowledge  of  Church 
history,  all  religious  bodies  seem  to  be  precisely 
on  the  same  footing,  though  thej  differ  so  widely ; 
and  naturally  little  by  little  his  estimate  of  what 
he  calls  "essentials"  narrows  down  to  faith  in  Christ 
and  leading  a  good  life.  He  concludes  that  one 
can  be  a  Christian  without  joining  any  Church; 
and  so,  as  a  result  of  Protestant  teaching,  to-day 
multitudes  of  honest,  sincere  men,  who  believe 
themselves  to  be^Christians,  stay  out  of  the  Church 
altogether;  and  on  the  Protestant  theory  one  fails 
to  see  how  they  can  be  seriously  reproached  for 
their  independence. 

Now  in  any  community  where  the  Protestant 
theory  predominates,  if  a  converted  man  makes  up 
his  mind  to  "join  the  Church,"  the  whole  question 
presents  itself  to  him  as  being  very  largely  a  mat- 
ter of  taste,  or  expediency ;  and  he  goes  where  his 
family  does,  or  to  that  church  which  his  friends 
attend,  or  to  some  church  where  he  happens  to  take 
a  personal  fancy  to  the  officiating  minister,  or  per- 
haps he  reads  a  book  about  some  new  cult  and 
attends  the  meetings  of  the  latest  and  most  up-to- 
date  sect;  or  perhaj)s  he  selects  that  church  which 
seems  to  make  the  least  demand  upon  his  faith, 
and  is  the  most  "liberal,"  in  the  sense  of  teaching 
the  least  definite  dogma. 

Wherever  he  goes,  or  whatever  he  does,  he 
simply  follows  his  own  inclination;  and  if  any- 
thing happens  to  disturb  his  equanimity  in  the 


24  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

church,  of  his  adoption,  he  forthwith  goes  over  to 
some  other  church,  where  he  is  welcomed  as  a 
new  convert.  His  church  relationship  seems  to 
be  a  thing  which  can  be  assumed  or  discarded  at 
pleasure,  without  any  qualms  of  conscience,  with- 
out any  feeling  of  responsibility  to  any  particular 
authority. 

It  is  a  very  curious  thing,  that  holding  this 
theory,  which  is,  in  effect,  that  forms  and  organ- 
izations are  of  no  consequence  as  long  as  the  heart 
is  all  right,  each  group  of  Protestants  should  still 
contend  vigorously  for  their  own  particular  sect 
and  creed,  and  spend  an  immense  amount  of  money 
in  perpetuating  its  peculiarities  and  making  con- 
verts from  other  sects.  Apparently  each  sect  acts 
as  if  it  thought  its  own  particular  forms  and  creeds 
were  of  very  vital  consequence,  and  must  be  main- 
tained and  perpetuated  at  any  cost.  This  hardly 
seems  to  be  consistent. 

.l!^ow  the  question  arises.  Is  the  Protestant 
theory  of  the  Church  a  wholly  satisfactory  one 
to  thoughtful  and  intelligent  Protestants  them- 
selves ?  Has  it  any  vital,  not  to  say  fatal,  defects, 
as  a  method  of  preserving  and  perpetuating  Chris- 
tian truth  ? 

It  may  seem  at  first  thought  to  the  average 
Protestant  like  rank  heresy  to  question  the  matter 
for  a  moment;  because  he  has  been  brought  up  in 
the  belief  that  Protestantism  has  vindicated,  and 
practically  monopolizes,  the  principle  of  the  right 
of  private  judgment  in  religion,  spiritual  freedom. 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  25 

heart  religion,  and  evangelical  truth ;  and  that  the 
only  alternative  to  Protestantism,  is  the  "super- 
stition" of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  which  he 
has  been  educated  to  abhor. 

To  question  the  glory  of  Protestantism  may 
perhaps  seem  like  disloyalty  to  the  Lord  Himself ; 
and  yet  be  this  as  it  may,  the  question  does  force 
itself  into  the  thoughts  of  many  thoughtful  Prot- 
testants,  who  are  shrewd  observers  of  the  times, 
and  the  trend  of  Protestantism  itself:  Does  the 
Protestant  principle  embrace  the  whole  truth? 
Does  it  define,  defend,  and  perpetuate  truth? 
Does  it  furnish  any  security  for  the  future  of 
Christianity,  as  an  organized,  teaching  system? 
These  questions  cannot  be  put  aside.  They  must 
be  met  and  answered,  in  the  light  of  modem  de- 
velopments in  the  religious  world. 

Now  in  the  first  place,  the  Protestant  theory 
proves  unsatisfactory  in  this  respect:  in  that  it 
involves  an  enormous  waste  of  money  and  mission- 
ary energy  when  it  undertakes  to  maintain,  and 
support,  three  or  four  separate  organizations  or 
churches  in  a  town  where  one  would  be  amply 
sufficient;  churches  which  under  the  best  of  cir- 
cumstances suffer  from  jealousies,  run  off  with 
each  other's  converts,  and  are  obliged  to  offer  all 
sorts  of  inducements  and  social  bribes,  in  order 
to  keep  their  members  together  at  all. 

Secondly,  the  co-existence  of  a  number  of  sects 
in  one  place  renders  any  such  thing  as  discipline 
impossible;  for  if  a  church  undertakes  to  disci- 


26  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

pline  a  refractory,  or  discredited,  member,  he 
simply  takes  up  his  belongings,  and  "goes  over"  to 
some  other  "church,"  where  he  is  welcomed  and 
made  at  home.  Protestantism  is  absolutely  pow- 
erless to  enforce  any  penalty  or  church  discipline 
against  offenders,  as  long  as  it  is  divided  against 
itself.  One  sect  may  attempt  to  discipline  a  man, 
but  as  long  as  a  hundred  others  stand  ready  to  take 
him  in,  he  may  snap  his  fingers  at  them  all,  and 
does  as  he  pleases. 

Thirdly,  every  candid  Protestant  must  admit 
that  such  a  multitude  of  creeds  is  very  perplexing. 
Take  all  Protestant  sects  together,  and  they  agree 
about  hardly  any  one  article  of  belief.  All  sects 
cannot  be  right,  and  yet  each  claims  that  it  is  right. 
An  unbeliever  turns  to  the  Protestant  and  says, 
"Your  creeds  are  at  best  your  personal  opinions 
about  a  book ;  and  where  there  is  so  much  disagree- 
ment there  cannot  be  any  vital  truth.  If  there  is, 
what  is  it  ? 

If  in  this  dilemma,  any  one  sect  should  step 
forward  and  say,  "I  alone  am  right;  I  have  the 
truth;  I  have  authority  to  settle  the  matter;"  then 
all  the  others  would  instantly  raise  the  cry  of  arro- 
gance and  narrow  exclusiveness,  and  their  disagree- 
ment would  be  all  the  more  conspicuous  and  hope- 
less. Protestantism  as  a  whole  cannot  define  its 
own  belief,  and  acknowledges  no  final  living  court 
of  appeal  in  matters  of  dispute. 

Fourthly,  when  the  Protestant  hotly  defends 
his  right  of  private  judgment,  the  right  to  make 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  27 


his  own  creed  and  his  own  church,  out  of  the  Bible, 
according  to  his  individual  interpretation,  he  must 
admit  that  every  other  man  has  the  right  to  do 
the  same  thing,  and  consequently  cannot  be  con- 
demned for  arriving  at  different  conclusions,  or 
because  he  takes  an  entirely  different  view  as  to 
what  the  Bible  teaches.  Thus  the  Protestant  has 
no  fixed  standpoint,  no  secure  vantage  ground, 
from  which  he  can  say  that  any  particular  creed 
is  erroneous,  beyond  his  own  personal  opinion. 
His  principle  of  private  interpretation  and  pri- 
vate judgment  has  run  away  with  him,  and  forces 
him  to  admit,  if  he  is  consistent,  that  Protestant- 
ism is  after  all  but  a  matter  of  individual  views 
and  personal  opinions  about  a  book ;  and  that  there 
is  not  anything  positive,  permanent,  or  authorita- 
tive in  it.  The  terrible  logic  of  this  principle 
finds  its  illustration  in  the  unquestionable  fact, 
that  certain  portions  of  Protestantism  are  eaten 
out  with  rationalism,  which  denies  the  superna- 
tural element  of  revelation,  and  that  Protestantism 
is  utterly  powerless  to  stop  the  process  or  to  save 
itself. 

Fifthly,  while  the  Protestant  claims  "the  Bi- 
ble and  the  Bible  only"  as  his  creed,  it  is  not  very- 
difficult  to  prove  that  there  are  large  portions  of 
the  doctrinal  teaching  of  the  Scriptures  which  have 
no  place  in  his  system  at  all ;  passages  concerning 
the  Church,  the  ministry,  and  the  sacraments,  and 
other  matters,  which  are  either  ignored  or  ex- 
plained away,  as  meaning  practically  nothing. 


28  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

It  may  seem  like  a  very  strange  assertion  to 
make,  but  it  is  demonstrably  true,  that  notwith- 
standing their  boasted  loyalty  to  the  Bible,  the 
way  Proteslants  as  a  class  speak  of  the  Church, 
and  the  way  the  Bible  speaks  of  the  Church,  are 
entirely  different. 

For  example,  putting  aside  for  a  moment  the 
question  as  to  what  the  Bible  teaches  about  the 
nature  and  organization  of  the  Church,  let  us 
ask:  How  does  the  Bible  regard  the  importance 
of  these  things  ?  Does  it  speak  as  if  they  were  of 
very  little  consequence,  and  as  if  the  only  essen- 
tial thing  was  faith,  and  holiness  of  life?  Or, 
on  the  other  hand.  Does  it  speak  of  the  Church  as 
if  there  were  only  one  Church,  created  by  Christ 
and  His  Apostles,  and  not  by  men;  and  as  if  it 
were  to  exist  always,  and  had  some  vital  relation 
to  the  Lord  Himself,  and  to  our  salvation  ?  As  a 
matter  of  fact,  the  Bible  not  only  speaks  always, 
and  everywhere,  of  one,  and  only  one,  Church, 
but  it  exhausts  language  in  the  effort  to  exalt  it, 
and  impress  us  with  its  importance.  The  Church 
is  called  the  "Body  of  Christ,"  "The  Fulness  of 
Him  who  fiUeth  all  in  all,"  "The  Church  of  the 
Living  God,  the  pillar  and  ground  of  the  truth," 
"The  Bride  of  Christ,"  "The  mountain  of  the 
Lord's  house."  Men  are  told  to  "hear  the  Church," 
or  become  as  heathen  men  and  publicans. 

Christ  is  said  to  love  the  Church,  and  give 
Himself  for  it;  to  sanctify  and  cleanse  it.  He 
calls  it  His  Church;  and  promises  that  the  gates 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  .  29 

of  hell  shall  not  prevail  against  it.  In  one  place 
the  Church  is  actually  called  Christ.  In  some 
sense  it  holds  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  Heaven. 
What  it  does  on  earth,  is  ratified  in  Heaven.  To 
hear  its  authorized  teachers  is  to  hear  Christ  Him- 
self. Christ  is  said  to  nourish  and  cherish  the 
Church ;  through  it  we  become  members  of  His 
Body.  He  is  the  Head  of  the  Church ;  the  Saviour 
of  the  Body ;  and  so  the  Bible  continually  identifies 
Christ  with  the  Church,  and  speaks  as  if  He  saved 
us  in,  and  through,  the  Church. 

Now  we  ask.  How  could  language  express  the 
importance  of  the  Church  any  more  forcibly  than 
this ;  and  if  the  Church  is  what  the  Bible  says  it 
is,  can  any  man  who  calls  himself  a  Bible  Chris- 
tian, assert  that  it  is  of  no  consequence  what,  or 
where  the  Church  is,  or  whether  one  belongs  to  it 
or  not,  provided  his  life  is  all  right?  So  we  re- 
peat that  the  way  Protestants  speak  of  the  impor- 
tance of  the  Church,  and  the  way  the  Bible  speaks 
of  it,  are  totally  different  and  irreconcilable. 

Sixthly,  the  Protestant  believes  that  the 
Church,  if  there  ever  was  any,  became  hopelessly 
corrupt  soon  after  Apostolic  days;  and  remained 
so  during  the  Middle  Ages,  until  the  Protestant 
Reformers  brought  the  truth  to  light  again ;  so  that 
for  many  centuries  the  whole  Christian  Church 
was  immersed  in  darkness  and  superstition,  and 
practically  became  apostate.  But  we  ask,  How 
did  Christianity  survive  at  all  through  a  thousand 
years  of  apostacy;  and  why  did  God  allow  His 


30  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

own  work  to  be  so  soon  thwarted,  and  generation 
after  generation  of  men  to  know  nothing  but  for- 
malism and  superstition  and  corruption,  after 
Christ  had  promised  that  He  would  be  with  His 
Church  every  day  to  the  end  of  the  world,  and 
that  the  gates  of  hell  should  not  prevail  against 
it?  These  questions  are  utterably  un^swerable, 
on  the  Protestant  theory  of  the  nature  of  the 
Church. 

Surely,  to  any  thoughtful  man,  it  must  be  an 
incredible  assumption,  this,  that  a  coterie  of  men 
in  the  sixteenth  century  should  suddenly  discover 
that  for  fifteen  hundred  years,  the  whole  Christian 
Church  had  been  proceeding  on  a  radically  false 
conception  of  her  nature  and  organization;  that 
all  her  missionary  triumphs  and  her  crowns  of 
martyrdom,  had  been  won  while  she  was  burdened 
with  gross  superstition  and  formalism  and  slavery 
to  dogma,  and  maintained  a  unity  of  belief  and 
organization  which  had  no  scriptural  basis  what- 
ever. It  is  certainly  a  very  curious  thing,  if  the 
Protestant  theory  be  true,  that  from  the  very  first, 
whenever  any  man  used  his  private  judgment  to 
make  a  new  Church,  or  a  new  creed,  he  was  in- 
stantly condemned  by  the  Church  as  doing  a  thing 
which  was  not  only  unlawful,  but  in  itself  fatal  to 
the  very  existence  of  the  Church,  if  it  were  to  be 
unchecked. 

But  seventhly,  suppose  it  should  be  discovered 
that  the  boast  of  Protestants,  that  their  system 
exists  to  vindicate  the  two  principles  of  Private 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  31 

Judgment  and  Free  Thought,  was  a  mistake ;  and 
that  after  all  people  who  refused  to  be  called  Prot- 
estants used  their  right  of  private  judgment  and 
were  free  to  think  pretty  much  as  they  pleased, 
so  far  as  sane  men  can.  Take  the  right  of  private 
judgment:  Does  Protestantism  monopolize  this 
right  ?  Surely  not,  for  no  man  ever  accepts  any 
religion  as  true,  until  in  every  case  the  first  appeal 
is  made  to  his  own  conscience  and  judgment.  The 
man  who  accepts  a  statement  wholly  upon  the  au- 
thority of  another,  must  first  decide  whether  the 
credentials  supporting  that  authority  are  good  and 
sufficient  to  warrant  him  in  accepting  its  pro- 
nouncements. 

The  man  who  accepts  a  definition  of  the  Pope 
of  Rome  as  infallible,  must  first  pass  judgment  on 
the  question  as  to  whether  the  Pope  is  infallible. 
As  some  one  has  said,  "You  can't  get  rid  of  private 
judgment,  any  more  than  you  can  jump  off  from 
your  shadow."  You  can  bring  the  claims  of  a  rev- 
elation from  God  to  the  bar  of  your  individual 
judgment,  to  determine  that  it  is  such  a  revelation, 
and  you  must  do  this ;  but  once  having  done  it,  you 
must  STOP ;  because  having  recognized  a  revelation 
from  God,  you  are  utterly  incompetent  to  assert 
what  that  revelation  shall  be,  or  to  pick  and  choose 
between  different  parts  of  it.  God  gives  you  the 
faculty  of  individual  judgment  to  test  the  claims 
of  a  Revelation,  hut  having  once  accepted  its  claims 
as  true,  you  cannot  choose  between  different  ele- 
ments of  the  Revelation;  and  when  Protestants 


32  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

assume  to  do  this,  thej  generally  wind  up  by  re- 
jecting the  Revelation  altogether.  The  claim  that 
Protestants  monopolize  the  right  of  legitimate  pri- 
vate judgment,  is  most  absurd  on  the  face  of  it. 

And  how  about  the  question  of  free  thought,  as 
opposed  to  dogmatic  creeds  ?  Are  Protestants  the 
only  ones  who  are  free  to  think? 

In  the  first  place,  the  words,  "free  thought"  are 
themselves  suspicious,  because  sane  men  are  lim- 
ited by  facts  and  the  rules  of  logic  in  their  think- 
ing; and  so  thought  is  effectual  and  valuable,  gen- 
erally, just  in  proportion  as  it  is  not  free.  You 
have  to  affirm  something  definite  and  certain,  that 
is,  something  dogmatically,  before  you  can  think 
logically  at  all ;  and  your  conclusions  are  valuable, 
only  just  so  far  as  your  premises  are  fixed  and 
positive.  All  systematic  thinking,  that  is  every 
science,  has  its  creed  of  the  most  dogmatic  kind; 
and  the  science  itself  would  be  impossible,  if  its 
creed  were  not  dogmatic  and  changeless.  No  man 
is  free  to  assert  that  two  times  seven  are  three,  or 
ninety-one ;  and  if  he  were,  mathematics  would  be 
impossible.  God  reveals  the  fact  of  the  Incar- 
nation. 'No  man  is  free  to  set  it  aside,  and  yet 
claim  to  accept  God's  revelation.  If  Christianity 
is  a  revelation  from  God  to  man,  of  supernatural 
facts,  then  such  a  revelation  cannot  change,  any 
more  than  God  can  change;  and  if  a  scientific  state- 
ment of  them  was  true  in  the  first,  fifth,  or  tenth 
centuries,  it  is  true  to-day.  Much  so-called  free 
thought  is  but  the  refusal  to  recognize  the  fact 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  33 

that  a  revelation  from  God  is  a  closed  question, 
for  every  man  who  professes  to  recognize  it  as  a 
revelation.  Moreover,  if  creeds  limit  and  hamper 
thought,  how  did  it  happen  that  they  have  formed 
the  basis  of  the  most  vigorous  thinking  the  world 
has  ever  known;  and  have  formed  the  sub-struc- 
ture of  the  intellectual  life  of  the  Christian 
Church,  which  was  marvellously  fertile  and  pro- 
ductive, centuries  before  the  catch-word  of  Free 
Thought  was  ever  heard  of  ?  Thought  may  be  free 
devoutly  to  study  the  Faith,  which  must  always 
be  beyond  its  full  comprehension,  and  to  apply 
that  Faith  to  the  changing  needs  of  the  individual 
and  the  times;  but  it  cannot  be  free  to  remodel 
that  Faith,  when  once  God  has  spoken. 

Apparently,  the  claim  that  Protestantism  either 
vindicates  or  monopolizes  the  right  of  private 
judgment,  or  freedom  of  thought,  has  no  basis  in 
the  facts  of  the  case.  So  we  think  that  the  Prot- 
estant theory  proves  unsatisfactory  in  many  ways, 
as  one  studies  it.  Those  who  have  most  to  do 
with  men  in  religious  matters,  who  keep  them- 
selves in  touch  with  the  trend  of  popular  thought, 
admit  that  there  is  a  more  or  less  widespread 
spirit  of  unrest  among  thoughtful  Protestants, 
many  of  whom  are  beginning  to  feel  the  difficulties 
of  their  position. 

If  the  Protestant  turns  to  Protestantism  for 
help,  he  finds  that  there  is  no  central  authority 
competent  or  authorized  to  state  even  what  Protest- 
antism teaches;  and  perhaps  he  begins  to  think 


34  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

that  it  does  not  give  the  average  hard-working  man 
much  security  of  knowing  the  truth.  A  suspicion 
of  this  fact  seems  to  be  finding  its  way  into  the 
minds  of  many  men  who  have  become  dissatisfied 
with  the  popular  Protestantism  of  the  day.  The 
more  earnest  among  them,  feeling  their  own  in- 
competence to  settle  these  great  questions  for  them- 
selves, are  looking  for  some  source  of  authorized 
teaching,  which  is  fixed,  bracing,  and  definite, 
while  others  are  drifting  away  from  the  Christian 
faith  altogether,  into  indiiference  and  rationalism. 
There  can  be  no  question  but  that  popular  Christ- 
ianity in  America  is  passing  through  a  transition 
period,  the  outcome  of  which  no  man  can  foresee. 
Many  of  the  Protestant  sects  have  left  their  old 
moorings,  are  falling  off  in  numbers  and  influence. 
Many  popular  preachers  seem  to  be  losing  their 
hold  on  the  old-fashioned  Gospel  truths,  or,  if  they 
teach  them  at  all,  do  it  with  a  hesitant,  apologetic 
air,  which  carries  no  force  of  conviction  with  it. 
To  a  Churchman  all  this  seems  to  be  but  the  legit- 
imate result  and  logical  outcome  of  the  Protest- 
ant sectarian  theory,  which  makes  Christianity  an 
individual  matter,  on  the  principle  that  every  man 
has  the  right  and  the  ability  to  make  his  own 
creed  and  his  oAvn  church,  according  to  his  own 
views;  and  therefore  there  can  be  no  one  central 
voice  of  authority  to  declare  the  truth,  which  all 
men  must  accept. 

Protestants  have  been  teaching  for  a  hundred 
years  that  there  is  nothing  supernatural  in  the 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  35 

origin  or  organization  of  the  Church.  Is  it  any 
wonder  that  men  have  drawn  the  inference,  that  it 
makes  no  difference  what  creed  a  man  holds,  or 
to  what  Church  he  belongs,  if  his  life  is  all  right  ? 
Is  it  strange  that  they  have  taken  the  next  logical 
step,  and  concluded  that  it  makes  no  difference 
whether  a  man  holds  any  creed,  believes  anything 
or  not,  if  he  lives  a  moral  life  ?  And  is  it  so 
very  unaccountable,  the  dreadful  fact  that  in 
Protestant  America  the  great  bulk  of  its  teeming 
population  are  not  Christians  in  any  sense ;  but 
have  drifted  completely  beyond  the  reach  of  the 
sects  of  which  their  ancestors  were  ardent  support- 
ers? Surely  the  logical  result  of  the  Protestant 
system  is  either  indifference  or  despair. 

To  a  devout  believer  it  must  always  seem  like 
a  dreadful  calamity  to  lose  one's  faith  in  the 
Christian  religion;  and  perhaps  that  experience 
which  next  to  this  is  the  most  trying,  is  to  lose 
one's  faith  in  the  religious  system  or  sect  in  which 
one  has  been  educated,  and  which  one  has  trusted ; 
to  feel  cut  adrift,  and  uncertain,  and  helpless,  in 
the  effort  to  find  out  what  is  the  truth. 

The  saddest  part  of  such  an  experience  is,  that 
a  man  who  loses  faith  in  his  sect  is  apt  to  think  that 
he  has  lost  faith  ^  everything ;  and  so  gives  up  the 
search  for  the  uruth,  and  drifts  into  skepticism  or 
indifference.  To  him  the  Protestant  conception 
of  Christianity  has  been  his  Christianity ;  the  only 
type  of  it  he  has  known ;  and  if  he  comes  to  distrust 
it,  there  seems  to  be  nothing  left  for  him.     There 


36  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

are  to-day,  unquestionably,  a  very  large  number 
of  persons  who  were  brought  up  as  Protestants, 
and  are  unsettled  and  drifting,  sadly  reluctant 
to  give  up  their  faith,  yet  far  from  sure  that  they 
can  retain  it.  Now  if  such  persons  could  know 
that  the  difficulty  is  not  with  Christianity  at  all, 
but  with  their  sect  or  system  which  has  misrepre- 
sented it  to  them,  and  that  there  is  an  organization 
of  Christians  in  this  country,  which  is  neither 
Protestant  nor  Roman  Catholic,  and  which  offers 
a  secure  ground  of  certitude  in  religious  belief, 
surely  the  claims  and  status  of  such  a  system  or 
Church  must  be  of  interest  to  them  as  being  unique, 
if  nothing  more;  and  as  at  least  promising  some 
help,  where  there  is  very  great  need  of  help,  guid- 
ance, and  light,  of  some  sort. 

Some  one  Church  in  the  United  States,  al- 
though it  be  not  large  in  the  number  of  its  mem- 
bers, may  yet  after  all  be,  historically,  the  legit- 
imate representative  to  the  American  people  of 
certain  great  Church  principles,  by  which  the 
truth  of  Revelation  has  been  defined,  taught,  and 
protected  in  the  past,  and  handed  down  from  one 
generation  to  another,  and  by  which  it  certainly 
must  be  defined,  taught,  and  be  protected  in  the 
future,  if  the  Christian's  Creed  is  to  survive  at  all. 

Does  the  Protestant  system  define,  teach,  and 
protect  the  truth  of  the  Revelation  of  Jesus  Christ, 
and  speak  with  authority  to  the  man  who  is  in 
search  of  the  truth?  If  it  does  not,  is  there  anv 
system  or  organization  which  does?      These  are 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  37 

vital  questions,  and  this  book  is  one  of  many  at- 
tempts to  answer  them,  or  at  least  to  suggest  a  line 
of  thought  along  which  the  answers  may  be  found. 

Notes  of  a  lecture  by  Doctor  E.  0.  Haven  (Methodist), 
Chancellor  of  Syracuse  University,  as  reported  in  the 
University  Herald,  Vol.  IV.,  No.  3. 

Protestantism,  on  the  other  hand,  is  a  term  that  un- 
fortunately implies  more  than  is  generally  conceded;  from 
a  Catholic  standpoint,  it  is  that  'ism  that  protests  against 
the  Romish  Church,  hence  must  come  under  this  head,  not 
only  the  Orthodox,  but  Universalism,  Spiritualism,  Lati- 
tudinarianism,  and  that  most  abominable  of  all  'isms,  Mor- 
monism. 

Protestantism,  when  viewed  as  a  whole,  appears  to 
be  only  a  shapeless  mass  of  innumerable  sects,  opposed  to 
each  other  and  agreeing  only  in  one  point,  protesting 
against  the  Roman  Catholic  Church.  Each  revolving  year 
adds  new  doctrines  and  effects  new  changes  in  doctrines, 
until  we  concede  the  argument  offered  against  us  by  the 
Bishop  of  Meaux:  "You  change,  and  that  which  changes 
is  not  truth."  It  is  not  uncommon  to  see  a  person  passing 
by  gradations  from  the  Orthodox  religion  to  Infidelity, 
but  it  is  uncommon  to  see  him  return  to  his  former  posi- 
tion, and  a  person  with  no  religion  is  dangerous  to  the  com- 
munity in  which  he  resides. 

Germany,  the  fatherland  and  first  theater  of  Protestant- 
ism, examples  to  the  world  a  sad  result.  It  requires  but 
little  acquaintance  with  the  present  state  of  affairs  to  per- 
ceive the  real  tendency  of  German  Protestantism.  Ration- 
alism is  there  on  the  ascendant,  and  this  system  has  already 
removed  the  very  substance  of  Christianity.  The  inspira- 
tion of  the  Bible  itself,  the  integrity  of  its  canon,  the  well 
authenticated  miracles,  and  even  the  resurrection  of  Christ 
Himself,  have  all  fallen  before  the  Juggernaut-car  of  Ger- 
man exegesis.  Christianity  is  reduced  to  a  mere  skeleton, 
and  infidel  principles  are  unblushingly  advocated  through 
the  press,  and  even  from  the  pulpit. 

We  think  that  we  do  not  misconstrue  the  idea  that  our 


38  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

Chancellor  desired  us  to  revolve  in  our  minds,  in  saying 
that  Germany  prgsents  a  direct  demonstration  of  the  work- 
ings of  a  system  whose  basis  is  liberty.  If  it  is  admitted 
that  liberty  is  liable  to  be  abused  and  taken  for  license, 
then  it  is  evident  that  some  restraint  is  required.  Cath- 
olic children  are  trained  in  the  faith  of  their  parents — 
a  profound  reverence  for  God  and  a  belief  in  eternal  pun- 
ishment for  sin.  Protestant  children,  on  the  other  hand, 
are  permitted  such  a  wide  range  of  liberty  in  forming  their 
ideas  and  shaping  their  faith  that  they  really  settle  upon 
nothing.  In  this  condition  they  are  thrust  out  into  the 
world,  and  thus,  staggering  under  the  weight  of  responsibil- 
ity, they  awake,  if  ever,  to  a  realization  of  the  fact  that 
their  plans  of  free  thought  have  been  too  broad,  and  that 
they  have  made  a  complete  wreck  of  faith.  The  whole  his- 
tory of  the  mind  unrestrained,  harmonizes  with  this  state 
of  affairs,  and  abounds  in  systems  inexhaustible  in  subtle- 
ties; as  ready  to  conceive  as  incapable  of  maintaining  it, 
full  of  conflicting  ideas;  now  soaring  on  the  wings  of  im- 
agination, now  floundering  in  the  slough  of  despond;  just 
as  intent  upon  destroying  the  works  of  another,  as  impotent 
in  forming  anything  durable  of  itself.  The  history  of  man's 
knowledge  consists  in  an  immense  and  confused  heap  of 
truth,  error,  and  absurdity.  Catholicism  says  to  a  man: 
"Your  intellect  is  not  sufficiently  strong  to  see  where  those 
are,  who  have  made  their  own  exegesis  of  the  Bible;  thou 
hast  need  of  a  guide."  Protestantism  says  to  him:  "Thou 
art  surrounded  by  broad  fields  of  truth;  it  is  thy  preroga- 
tive to  make  thy  own  exegesis.    Do  as  thou  wilt." 


CHAPTER  III 

THE  CATHOLIC  THEORY  OF  THE  CHURCH 

TIN"  the  last  chapter  we  defined  the  Protestant 
theory  of  the  Church,  and  found  that  at  best 
it  was  in  many  respects  an  unsatisfactory  one. 
ISTow  there  is  another  theory  of  the  Church,  which 
is  held  to-day  by  three  great  Christian  bodies, 
known  as  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  the  An- 
glican, or  Anglo-Catholic  Church  (which  includes 
the  Church  of  England,  with  her  branches  in  Scot- 
land and  Ireland  and  in  the  colonies,  and  the  Amer- 
ican Episcopal  Church),  and  the  Holy  Orthodox 
Greek,  or  Eastern  Church.  These  three  parts  of 
the  Church,  however  much  they  may  differ  in 
some  points  of  doctrine  and  organization,  agree  in 
holding  what  may  be  called  the  Catholic  theory  of 
the  Church ;  and  they  all  recite  the  Catholic  Creed, 
in  which  the  Church  is  said  to  be  One,  Holy, 
Catholic,  and  Apostolic.  This  theory  of  the  nature 
of  the  Church  would  seem  to  be  of  some  impor- 
tance, if  for  no  other  reason,  because  it  is  held 


40  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

by  over  two  hundred  and  seventy  millions  of  Chris- 
tians to-day;  that  is,  by  about  five  times  as  many 
as  all  Protestants  put  together ;  a  hundred  and  sev- 
enty millions  of  Roman  Catholics,  eighty  millions 
of  Greek  Catholics,  and  twenty  millions  of  Angli- 
can Catholics. 

ISTotice  that  about  a  hundred  millions  of  these 
Christians,  who  call  themselves  Catholics,  are  not 
Roman  Catholics,  and  repudiate  entirely  the  su- 
premacy of  the  Pope  of  Rome. 

The  Catholic  theory  of  the  Church  may  be 
stated  somewhat  as  follows.     A  Churchman  says: 

First.  I  believe  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the  Son 
of  God:  and  as  my  Creator,  and  Redeemer,  de- 
mands of  me,  first  of  all,  obedience ;  and  there- 
fore, whatever  He  did,  and  whatever  He  said,  is  to 
riie  of  infinite  importance,  and  is  of  binding  obliga^ 
tion  on  my  conscience,  no  matter  whether  it  con- 
cerns holy  living,  or  His  Church. 

Setond.  The  Son  of  God  became  incarnate,  to 
give  me  grace  and  truth  necessary  for  my  salva- 
tion ;  and  I  can  be  sure  of  receiving  this  grace 
and  this  truth  otily  by  receiving  it  through  such 
means  as  He  provides,  in  obedience  to  Sis  will. '  • 

Third.  Holy  Scriptures  and  Church  history 
prove  to  me  beyond  question,  that  He  organized  a 
visible,  self-perpetuating  Church,  one,  and  only 
one,  as  this  means  of  conveying  grace  and  truth 
to  men. 

Fourth.  This  Church  was  to  exist  unto  the 
end  of  the  world,  and  therefore  exists  to-day ;  must 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  41 

claim  my  allegiance,  and  must  have  certain  marks 
by  which  I  can  find  it  and  identify  it,  in  any  com- 
munity where  it  exists. 

Fifth.  The  Lord  Christ  commissioned  this 
Church  to  teach,  administer  sacraments  and  dis- 
cipline in  His  Name  and  by  His  authority,  so  that 
to  hear  its  ministry  was  to  hear  Him.  Therefore, 
obeying  those  whom  He  sends  is  a  necessary  part 
of  my  obedience  to  Him,  as  the  Son  of  God.  I 
must  belong  to  the  Church  He  creates  and  He  com- 
missions, and  to  no  other. 

8ixth.  The  Catholic  Church  thus  being  the 
product  of  our  Lord's  own  words  and  acts,  and  the 
work  of  the  Apostles  under  the  guidance  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  is  divine  in  its  origin  and  authority ; 
and  therefore  cannot  be  altered  or  abolished;  nor 
can  something  else  be  substituted  for  it,  any  more 
than  the  Lord  Himself  can  be  repudiated. 

Seventh.  Historically,  the  Church  is  a  self- 
perpetuating  body,  begins  at  Jerusalem,  and  ex- 
tends itself  by  a  continuous,  organic  life  through 
every  age  and  every  race,  throughout  the  world ; 
and  its  historic  identity  may  thus  be  traced,  from 
first  to  last,  as  one  and  the  same  body. 

Eighth.  Mystically ,  the  Church  is  the  Body 
of  Christ  in  which  He  dwells,  and  through  which 
He  works  for,  and  upon,  men.  It  is  thus  the  re- 
manifestation  of  His  Incarnation,  no  longer  under 
the  limitations  of  a  human  body  in  one  point  of 
space,  but  in  a  mystical  Body  throughout  the  whole 
world;  and  so  the  Church  is  One,  Holy,  Catholic, 


42  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

and  Apostolic,  because  He  unites  it,  He  sanctifies 
it.  He  fills  it,  and  He  organizes  it. 

Ninth.  The  Lord  gives  men  truth,  in  the 
Church,  through  the  Holy  Spirit,  who  does  two 
things :  He  guides  the  mind  of  the  whole  Church 
to  teach  and  believe  the  same  thing,  and  so  this 
universal  consent  and  agreement  as  to  what  is  the 
truth,  is  expressed  and  crystallized  in  the  Catholic 
Creeds.  The  Holy  Spirit  also  inspires  individ- 
uals to  write,  and  guides  them  in  writing,  and  thus 
we  have  the  New  Testament  Scriptures  as  the 
record  of  apostolic  teaching.  Hence  the  Catholic 
accepts  the  Faith,  because  the  Church  has  been 
supernaturally  guided  in  defining  it,  and  teaches 
it  with  the  Lord's  authority ;  and  not  because  he 
has  reasoned  it  out  for  himself,  or  made  his  own 
selection  of  doctrines,  according  to  his  own  private 
opinion. 

Tenth.  The  Lord  gives  men  grace  in  the 
Church,  by  associating  certain  gifts  of  grace,  with 
the  reception  of  outward  signs;  and  thus  we  have 
the  sacramental  system.  And  so  whatever  grace 
may  be  found  out  of  the  Church,  the  Catholic 
Christian  cannot  be  sure  of  receiving  all  the  grace 
Christ  wills  to  give,  unless  he  receives  the  sacra- 
ments Christ  ordains  in  the  Church. 

Eleventh.  The  Lord  continues  His  mediato- 
rial work  in  the  Church  through  the  ministrations 
of  a  continuous  priesthood,  which  He  commis- 
sions ;  whose  chief  work  it  is,  to  offer  to  the  Father 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  43 

the  memorial  of  His  sacrifice ;  to  baptize,  absolve, 
teach,  and  bless  men,  in  His  name. 

Twelfth.  It  therefore  follows,  that  the  Cath- 
olic Church  in  any  place  is  that  body  of  Christians 
which  was  organized  by,  and  is  in  communion 
with,  the  Catholic  Church  of  Christ ;  which  retains 
the  Catholic  Creeds,  ministry,  and  sacraments,  and 
submits  itself  to  the  corporate  authority  of  the 
whole  Catholic  Church,  in  matters  of  doctrine  and 
discipline. 

This  is  practically  the  Catholic  theory  of  the 
Church,  and  if  this  theory  be  true,  then  it  follows 
that  Christians  do  not  make  the  Church,  but 
Christ  makes  it.  The  Church  comes  first  in  the 
persons  of  the  Apostles,  and  then  the  Church 
makes  Christians,  by  gathering  men  into  itself. 
The  Church  is  one  Body  of  divine  origin,  not  a 
hundred  sects  of  human  origin.  The  Church  is 
not  made  up  out  of  the  Bible,  but  the  Church 
comes  first  and  writes  the  New  Testament  itself. 
Men  come  into  the  Church,  not  because  they  are 
saved,  but  because  they  want  to  be  saved;  not  be- 
cause they  are  holy,  in  order  to  exhibit  their  faith, 
but  because  they  are  sinful,  and  need  the  help  of 
the  Church  to  get  the  grace  and  truth  they  need. 
Conversion  does  not  make  a  man  a  member  of  the 
Church,  but  Baptism  does;  and  so  a  man  cannot 
become  a  Christian  first,  alone  by  himself,  and 
then  a  member  of  the  Church  later,  or  not  at  all, 
as  he  pleases,  because  he  is  made  a  Christian  and  a 
Churchman  at  one  and  the  same  time,  by  the  same 


44  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

means,  namely  Baptism.  Thus  Church  member- 
ship is  not  a  matter  of  taste  or  expediency,  but 
simply  one  of  obedience  to  our  Lord,  who  sends  the 
Church  in  His  name.  A  Churchman's  creed  is 
not  the  platform  of  any  sect,  not  anybody's  theory, 
not  even  his  own  views  or  his  own  interpretation 
of  Scriptures.  He  accepts  the  Catholic  Faith  of 
the  whole  Church  from  the  first.  He  does  not  get 
it  from  the  Bible,  but  from  the  Church  which 
gives  him  his  Bible,  and  he  tests  it  by  the  Bible. 

Now  to  sum  up  the  whole  matter  in  as  few 
words  as  possible :  According  to  Protestants,  grace 
does  its  work  in  the  hearts  of  individual  men, 
making  Christians  of  them  by  conversion.  These 
individuals  then  make  a  human  church,  which 
comes  up  to  God  from  men.  According  to  Cath- 
olics, grace  is  first  of  all  lodged  in  a  divine  Church, 
which  comes  down  to  men  from  God;  and  which 
(after  conversion)  makes  Christians  of  them 
through  Baptism.  On  the  Protestant  theory,  a 
Church,  being  a  human  organization  coming  up 
from  men,  you  can  have  any  number  of  such 
churches,  and  you  can  belong  to  any  one  you  like. 
On  the  Catholic  theory,  the  Church  being  a  di- 
vine organism  which  comes  down  to  men  from  God, 
you  can  have  only  one  Church,  the  one  Christ 
sends  to  you,  and  you  must  belong  to  that  and  no 
other,  simply  because  Christ  makes  it,  and  sends  it. 

Now  we  have  been  speaking  of  the  Catholic 
theory  of  the  Church,  as  a  theory;  but  we  must 
bear  in  mind  that  this  theory  rests  on  a  fact  which 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  45 

cannot  seriously  be  questioned  by  any  competent 
scholar;  namely,  that  from  the  days  of  the  Apos- 
tles to  the  present  time,  a  great  organization  calling 
itself  the  Catholic  Church  has  existed,  to  which 
nearly  three  hundred  millions  of  men  give  their 
allegiance  to-day,  who  hold  this  theory  as  the  foun- 
dation of  their  Christian  Faith. 

When  Protestants  use  the  word  Catholic,  they 
generally  refer  to  the  Roman  Catholic  Church; 
and  it  is  often  a  matter  of  great  surprise  to  them 
to  find,  that  a  hundred  millions  of  men  claim  to 
be  Catholics,  who  are  not  Roman  Catholics  at  all. 
It  is  equally  surprising  to  them  when  they  learn 
that  members  of  the  Church  of  England  and  of  the 
Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States,  claim  to 
be  Catholics,  and  that  their  respective  communions 
are  parts  of  the  ancient  Catholic  Church.  Yet 
nevertheless,  such  is  the  claim  of  members  of  the 
Anglo-Catholic  Church.  This  claim  is  based  on 
the  historic  facts  which  prove  that  the  Church  of 
England,  from  which  the  Episcopal  Church  in 
the  United  States  derives  its  organization  and 
authority,  its  faith,  ministry,  and  sacraments,  was 
founded  by  missionaries  in  primitive  times;  and 
was  for  many  centuries  in  communion  with  the 
whole  Catholic  Church  the  world  over,  and  has  had 
a  continuous  corporate  life  ever  since;  so  that  to- 
day, it  is  historically  and  actually  the  Catholic 
Church  of  the  land,  in  distinction  from  the  Prot- 
estant sects  which  have  originated  since  the  Kefor- 
mation,  and  the  Roman  Catholic,  or  Latin  mission 


46  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

in  England,  which  dates  only  from  15Y0,  when 
Romanists  left  the  old  Church  and  founded  a  new 
body,  by  order  of  Pope  Pius  V.     So  the  Episcopal 
Church  in  the  United  States  claims  to  be  historic- 
ally a  part  of  the  Catholic  Church,  and  to  inherit 
by  unbroken  succession  the  Church's  ancient  min- 
istry, sacraments,  faith,  authority,   and  jurisdic- 
tion ;  to  be  the  representative  to  the  American  peo- 
ple of  the  ancient  Church,  which  recognizes  no  man 
short  of  the  Lord  Christ  Himself,  as  its  founder. 
Now  it  is  necessary  further  to  define  the  word 
Catholic,  in  order  to  avoid  misunderstanding.     It 
means  universal,  or  whole;  and  originally  it  was 
applied  to  the  Christian  Church  to  distinguish  it 
from  the  Jewish  Church,  which  was  temporary, 
national,  and  local ;  whereas  the  Christian  Church 
was  to  be  Catholic  or  Universal,  in  teaching  all 
truth,  and  administering  all  grace,  to  all  men,  of 
all  ages.     Then  when  heresies  and  sects  were  or- 
ganized, by  men  who  left  the  old  Church,  the  name 
Catholic  was  used  to  distinguish  between  the  old 
and  the  new  body,  and  the  old  and  the  new  faith ; 
just  as  the  Church  uses  it  to-day,  to  distinguish 
between    modern    Protestant    sects,    and    the    old 
Church.    This  original  and  primitive  meaning  has 
been  distorted  in    two  ways.     First,  by  narrowing 
it  down  so  as  to  designate  only  those  in  communion 
with  the  Pope  of  Rome;   and  in  this  way  the 
Roman  Catholic  Church  has  succeeded  in  making 
Protestants  believe,  that  Catholic  means  Roman 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  47 

Catholic,  and  so  Protestants  are  suspicious  of  the 
word,  and  of  those  who  use  it. 

Again  the  word  Catholic  is  distorted  by 
Protestants,  who,  like  the  Irvingites  and  the  Chris- 
tian Scientists  and  some  others,  use  it  to  express 
their  own  peculiarities,  in  utter  defiance  of  its 
historic  sense ;  and  so  it  becomes  practically  mean- 
ingless;  because  as  thus  used,  a  word  which  means 
everything  and  anything,  and  nothing  in  partic- 
ular, and  is  used  to  define  things  that  contradict 
each  other,  really  means  nothing  at  all;  and  is 
even  less  definitive  than  the  word  Protestant, 
which  at  least  means  negation,  or  denial.  Cen- 
turies of  universal  usage  determine  the  historic 
meaning  of  the  term  Catholic ;  and  it  can  neither 
be  limited  to  the  Roman  Church,  nor  be  expanded 
to  fit  the  vagaries  of  sectarianism.  Neither  Ro- 
mans nor  Protestants  can  re-define  it,  to  suit  the 
exigencies  of  their  own  positions.  The  Church 
retains  it,  because  it  is  the  only  word  which  defines 
her  relation  to  antiquity,  and  her  protest  against 
both  Sectarianism  and  Romanism,  To  be  a  Cath- 
olic in  the  original  and  historic  sense  of  the  word, 
is  neither  to  make  your  own  Church  and  your  own 
creed,  nor  is  it  to  submit  to  the  authority  of  Rome, 
and  subscribe  to  the  creed  of  Pius  IV.  Both  posi- 
tions are  modem  and  uncatholic. 

Now  in  order  to  show  that  neither  the  Catholic 
name,  nor  the  Catholic  theory  of  the  nature  of  the 
Christian  Church,  are  modem  inventions  or  late 
corruptions  of  primitive  truth,  let  us  turn  to  the 


4»  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

witness  of  some  of  the  early  Christian  writers  and 
see  what  they  say.  For  example,  Ignatius,  Bishop 
of  Antioch,  who  was  a  disciple  of  St.  John  the 
Apostle,  and  whose  Epistles  were  written  about 
A.  D.  110,  writes: 

"Shun  divisions,  as  the  beginning  of  evils.  .  .  . 
Let  no  man  do  aught  of  things  pertaining  to  the 
Church  apart  from  the  Bishop.  Let  that  be  held 
a  valid  Eucharist  which  is  held  under  the  Bishop 
or  one  to  whom  he  shall  have  committed  it.  Where- 
soever the  Bishop  shall  appear,  there  let  the  peo- 
ple be ;  even  as  where  Jesus  may  be,  there  is  the 
Universal  Church."  * 

"He  that  is  within  the  sanctuary  is  clean ;  but 
he  that  is  without  the  sanctuary  is  not  clean,  that 
is,  he  that  doeth  aught  without  the  Bishop  and 
presbytery  and  deacons,  this  man  is  not  clean  in  his 
conscience."  * 

"If  any  man  followeth  one  that  maketh  a 
schism,  he  doth  not  inherit  the  Kingdom  of  God."  ' 

"Every  one  whom  the  Master  of  the  household 
sendeth  to  be  steward  over  His  own  house,  we  ought 
80  to  receive  as  Him  that  sent  him.  Plainly  there- 
fore we  ought  to  regard  the  Bishop  as  the  Lord 
Himself."  * 

"For  Jesus  Christ  also,  our  inseparable  life,  is 
the  mind  of  the  Father,  even  as  the  Bishops  that 


*  Smyrnaeans,  ch.  viii. 
'  Trallians,  ch.  vii. 

'  Philippians,  ch.  iii. 

*  Ephesians,  ch.  vi. 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  49 

are  settled  in  the  farthest  parts  of  the  earth  are  in 
the  mind  of  Jesus  Christ."  ' 

"Let  all  men  respect  the  deacons  as  Jesus 
Christ,  even  as  they  should  respect  the  Bishop  as 
being  a  type  of  the  Father,  and  the  presbyters  as 
the  council  of  God  and  as  the  college  of  apostles. 
Apart  from  these  there  is  not  even  the  name  of  a 
Church."  • 

Clement  of  Alexandria,  who  lived  about  A.  D. 
193,  writes : 

"From  what  has  been  said  I  think  it  has  been 
made  plain  that  unity  is  a  characteristic  of  the 
true,  the  really  ancient  Church,  into  which  those 
that  are  righteous  according  to  the  divine  purpose 
are  enrolled.  For  God  being  one  and  the  Lord  be- 
ing one,  that  also  which  is  supremely  honored  is 
the  object  of  praise,  because  it  stands  alone,  being 
a  copy  of  the  one  First  Principle :  at  any  rate  the 
one  Church,  which  they  strive  to  break  up  into 
many  sects,  is  bound  up  with  the  principle  of 
Unity.  We  say  then  that  the  ancient  and  Catholic 
Church  stands  alone  in:  essence  and  idea  and  prin- 
ciple and  preeminence,  gathering  together,  by  the 
willof  6ne  God  through  the- one  Lord,,  into  the 
unity  of  the  one  faith,  built  upon  the  fitting  cove- 
nants (or  rather  the  one  covenant  given  at  differ- 
ent times)  all  those  who  are  already  enlisted  in  it, 
whom  God  foreordained,  having  known  from  the 

*  Ephesiana,  ch.  iii. 

•  Trallians,  ch.  iii. 

The  translations  of  St.  Ignatius  are  Bishop  Lightfoot's. 


50  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

foundation  of  the  world  that  they  would  be  right- 


eous, 


Such  being  the  case,  it  is  evident  that  these 
later  heresies  and  those  which  are  still  more  recent 
are  spurious  innovations  on  the  oldest  and  truest 
Church.  ... 

^  "It  needs  no  long  discourse  to  prove  that  the 
merely  human  assemblies  which  they  have  insti- 
tuted were  later  in  time  than  the  Catholic 
Church."  ' 

Cyprian,  who  died  A.  D.  258,  writes : 

"There  is  one  God  and  Christ  is  one,  and  there 
is  one  Church,  and  one  chair  founded  upon  the 
Rock  by  the  word  of  the  Lord.  Another  Altar 
cannot  be  constituted,  nor  a  new  Priesthood  be 
made,  except  the  one  Altar  and  the  one  Priesthood. 
Whosoever  gathereth  elsewhere,  scattereth."  ' 

"The  Catholic  Church  has  been  shown  to  be 
one,  and  to  be  able  neither  to  be  cut  nor  divided."  * 

"We  have  exhorted  them  to  acknowledge  and 
hold  the  root  and  matrix  of  the  Catholic  Church."  " 

Writing  concerning  ISTovatian,  who  attempted 
to  organize  a,  separate  sect,  Cyprian  says : 

"In  spite  of  God's  tradition,  in  spite  6f  the 
combined  and  everywhere  compacted  unity  of  the 
Catholic  Church,  (he)  is  endeavoring  to  make  a 
human  church,  and  is  sending  his  new  Apostles 


'  Stromata,  bk.  vii,  ch.  xvii. 
'  Ep.  xxxix.  5. 
'Ep.  xlvi.  2. 
"  Ep.  xliv.  3. 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  51 

through  very  many  cities,  that  he  may  establish 
some  new  foundations  of  his  own  appointment."  " 

Describing  the  unity  of  the  Catholic  Church, 
Cyprian  says : 

"The  Church  is  likewise  one,  though  she  be 
spread  abroad,  and  multiplies  with  the  increase  of 
her  progeny;  even  as  the  sun  has  rays  many,  yet 
one  light;  and  the  tree,  boughs  many,  yet  its 
strength  is  one,  seated  in  the  deep-lodged  root ;  and 
as  when  many  streams  flow  down  from  one  source, 
though  a  multiplicity  of  waters  seem  to  be  diffused 
from  the  bountifulness  of  the  overflowing  abund- 
ance, unity  is  preserved  in  the  source  itself.  Part 
a  ray  of  the  sun  from  its  orb,  and  its  unity  forbids 
this  division  of  light.  Break  a  branch  from  a  tree, 
once  broken  it  can  bud  no  more.  Cut  the  stream 
from  its  fountain,  the  remnant  will  be  dried  up. 
Thus  the  Church  flooded  with  the  light  of  the  Lord, 
puts  forth  her  rays  through  the  whole  world,  with 
yet  one  light,  which  is  spread  upon  all  places, 
while  its  unity  of  body  is  not  infringed.  She 
stretches  forth  her  branches  over  the  universal 
earth,  in  the  riches  of  plenty,  and  pours  abroad  her 
bountiful  and  onward  streams,  yet  is  there  one 
head,  one  source,  one  Mother,  abundant  in  the  re- 
sults of  her  fruitfulness."  " 

Cyril,  who  was  Bishop  of  Jerusalem  A.D.  350, 
says : 


Ep.  li.  24. 

'  On  the  Unity  of  the  Church,  ch.  4. 


52  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

"While  the  Kings  of  particular  nations  have 
bounds  set  to  their  dominion,  the  Holy  Catholic 
Church  alone  extends  her  illimitable  sovereignty 
over  the  whole  world."  '^  "Now  it  is  called  Cath- 
olic because  it  is  throughout  the  world,  from  one 
end  of  the  earth  to  the  other,  and  because  it  teaches 
universally  and  completely  one  and  all  the  doc- 
trines which  ought  to  come  to  men's  knowledge, 
concerning  things  both  visible  and  invisible,  Heav- 
enly and  earthly;  and  because  it  subjugates  in 
order  to  godliness  every  class  of  men,  governors 
and  governed,  learned  and  unlearned ;  and  because 
it  universally  treats,  and  heals  every  sort  of  sins 
which  are  committed  by  soul  or  body,  and  possesses 
in  itself  every  form  of  virtue  which  is  named, 
both  in  deeds  and  words,  and  in  every  kind  of 
spiritual  gifts.  And  it  is  rightly  named  Church 
because  it  calls  forth  and  assembles  together  all 
men. 

Again  Cyril  says : 

"But  since  the  word  Church  or  assembly  is 
applied  to  different  things  .  .  .  the  Faith  has 
delivered  to  thee  by  way  of  security,  the  Article 
'and  in  One  Holy  Catholic  Church' ;  that  thou 
mayest  avoid  their  wretched  meetings,  and  ever 
abide  with  the  Holy  Catholic  Church  in  which 
thou  wast  regenerated.  And  if  ever  thou  art  so- 
journing in  any  city,  inquire  not  simply  where 


"  Cat.  Lee.  xviii.  27. 
"  Ibid.  23,  24. 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  53 

the  Lord's  House  is,  (for  the  sects  of  the  profane 
also  make  an  attempt  to  call  their  own  dens  houses 
of  the  Lord,)  not  merely  where  the  Church  is,  but 
where  is  the  Catholic  Church.  For  this  is  the 
peculiar  name  of  this  Holy  Body,  the  mother  of 
us  all,  which  is  the  spouse  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  the  Only  Begotten  Son  of  God."  " 

The  writings  called  the  "Constitutions  of  the 
Apostles"  compiled  about  A.D.  350,  assert,  "The 
Catholic  Church  is  the  plantation  of  God,  and  His 
beloved  Vineyard  containing  those  who  have  be- 
lieved in  His  unerring  and  divine  religion."  " 

In  the  Liturgy  of  St.  James,  the  priest  prays 
"For  the  stablishing  of  the  Holy  Catholic  Church 
which  Thou  hast  founded  on  the  Rock  of  Faith, 
that  the  gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail  against 
it."  "Thy  Holy  Catholic  and  Apostolic  Church 
throughout  the  world."  In  the  Liturgy  of  St. 
Mark,  the  priest  prays,  "with  the  entire  body  of 
the  Holy  Catholic  and  Apostolic  Church."  "We 
pray  and  beseech  Thee,  O  Lover  of  men,  O  Good 
Lord,  remember  in  Thy  good  mercy,  the  Holy 
and  only  Catholic  Church  throughout  the  whole 
world." 

In  the  Liturgy  of  the  Holy  Apostles  we  read, 
"O  Lord  God  Omnipotent,  Thine  is  the  Holy  Cath- 
olic Church.  Accept  this  oblation  for  the  whole 
Holy  Catholic  Church." 


"  Lect.  xviii.  26. 
"Book  I.,  sec.  1. 


54     •  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

The  quotations  which  we  have  now  given  from 
the  early  Christian  writers,  prove  beyond  question 
that  both  in  name  and  theory,  the  Christian  Church 
was  Catholic  from  the  very  first  Apostolic  days; 
and  that  anything  approaching  the  modern  Protest- 
ant theory  of  division,  was  either  unknown  or  was 
promptly  condemned  the  instant  it  was  suggested, 
as  contrary  to  the  whole  teaching  and  essential 
nature  of  the  Church. 

It  still  remains  for  us  to  see  if  the  Catholic 
theory  is  also  the  theory  embodied  in  the  Holy 
Scriptures ;  and  the  proof  that  it  is  will  come  in 
its  proper  place. 


CHAPTER  IV 

THE  CATHOLIC   PRINCIPLE   OF  AUTHORITY 

TJLMOST  all  theories,  however  complicated, 
Jm  rest  on  some  one  principle  which  is  essential, 
can  be  tested  by  some  one  question  which  touches 
the  vital  point  at  issue ;  and  so  if  we  find  this  prin- 
ciple and  apply  the  right  question,  the  whole  argu- 
ment is  immensely  simplified,  and  the  ground 
cleared  of  a  lot  of  side  issues,  which  are  not  of 
vital  consequence. 

This  is  true  of  the  issue  between  Catholics  and 
Protestants,  for  while  to  a  man  who  takes  a  super- 
ficial view  of  the  differences  and  controversies 
among  those  who  call  themselves  Christians,  any 
solution  seems  to  be  almost  hopeless,  yet  if  you 
ask  two  very  simple  questions,  you  find  that  all 
sects  must  instantly  gi'oup  themselves  into  two 
classes,  take  one  side  or  the  other  of  a  distinct  and 
vital  issue.  The  questions  are  these:  How  did 
any  sect  under  discussion  originate,  and  on  what 
principle  does  it  teach  ?    Mind  you,  the  question  is 


56  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

not  What  doctrine  does  it  teach,  but  By  what  au- 
thority does  it  teach  any  doctrine  f  You  will  thus 
find  that  those  who  call  themselves  Protestants, 
organized  their  churches  since  the  Reformation, 
and  teach  on  the  principle  of  individual  interpre- 
tation of  the  Bible;  while  those  who  call  them- 
selves Catholics,  claim  to  belong  to  the  Ancient 
Church  which  our  Lord  created,  and  to  teach  on 
the  principle  of  authority  transmitted  from  Him, 
in  the  Church.  The  Catholic  accepts  the  teaching 
of  the  Church,  because  Christ  sent  and  commis- 
sioned it  to  teach  and  interpret  the  Faith  and  the 
Holy  Scriptures.  The  whole  matter  then  reduces 
itself  to  this :  Who  has  authority  to  teach  ?  Can 
such  authority  be  assumed,  or  must  it  be  inherited  ? 
Any  sect  or  any  man  may  be  right  or  wrong  in 
what  he  teaches ;  but  before  you  can  deal  with  his 
teaching,  he  must  show  what  is  his  authority  to 
teach  anything  at  all  in  the  Name  of  the  Lord 
Christ.  If  he  has  authority,  then  what  he  says 
must  carry  with  it  a  certain  moral  obligation  to 
listen  to  it,  and  obey  it.  But  if  he  has  no  such 
authority,  then  what  he  says,  however  true  it  may 
be,  cannot  be  binding  upon  us  in  any  way,  if  we 
happen  to  disagree  with  him.  The  man,  or  church, 
must  be  sent  by  some  authority  we  can  recognize, 
and  must  give  reasonable  credentials  of  possessing 
that  authority. 

Catholics  have  no  controversy  with  individual 
Protestant  denominations,  about  their  individual 
peculiarities,  but  with  all  of  them  as  being  of  one 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  57 

class,  and  as  representing  one  principle,  namely, 
the  right  of  the  individual  to  make  a  new  church 
and  a  new  creed,  for  himself,  according  to  his  own 
views  of  the  Bible. 

If,  as  Catholics  claim,  the  Lord  Christ  made 
and  sent  one  Church  and  one  ministry  which  exist 
to-day,  authorized  to  represent  Him,  then  the  vital 
question  which  must  precede  all  others,  is.  Where 
is  that  Church  and  that  ministry  ?  Notice,  this  is 
not  a  question  of  detail,  or  personal  preference,  or 
expediency,  but  of  authority  pure  and  simple.  This 
will  be  better  understood,  by  the  use  of  a  simple 
illustration. 

Suppose  that  an  ambassador  had  been  sent  to 
this  country  from  England,  and  that  three  Eng- 
lishmen should  present  themselves  to  the  President 
at  Washington,  claiming  to  fill  the  ambassador's 
position.  Imagine  the  first  man  saying,  "I  am 
perfectly  competent  to  represent  my  country  as 
ambassador  at  Washington.  I  belong  to  a  promi- 
nent English  family,  and  have  been  a  member  of 
Parliament,  a  conspicuous  legislator.  I  am  famil- 
iar with  English  politics,  and  I  do  not  see  why  I 
should  not  be  the  Ambassador."  Then  suppose  the 
second  man  should  present  himself,  and  say,  "I 
am  a  trained  diplomat;  I  have  made  a  special 
study  of  political  and  social  science,  I  have  an 
honorable  record,  great  persuasive  powers  in  argu- 
ment, I  am  clever  and  tactful.  There  is  no  reason 
why  I  should  not  represent  England  in  America." 
Then  lastly,  suppose  the  third  man  should  come 


58  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

forward  and  say,  "Whether  I  am  personally  com- 
petent or  not,  as  a  simple  matter  of  fact  I  am  the 
Ambassador,  because  I  have  been  so  appointed  by 
the  English  government;  and  I  have  my  creden- 
tials here  at  hand." 

]^ow  which  one  would  the  Government  at 
Washington  receive  ?  Would  his  reception  turn 
on  the  question  of  his  fitness,  or  his  authority  ? 
Most  certainly  on  the  question  of  his  authority ; 
and  the  strong  presumption  would  be,  that  if  his 
government  had  selected  him  and  sent  him,  he  was 
a  fit  person  to  fill  the  ofiice.  At  any  rate,  the  ques- 
tion of  his  fitness  would  be  determined  later ;  and 
it  would  not  determine  his  ofiicial  authority  at  all. 
The  other  men  might  be  very  clever,  and  very  intel- 
ligent; in  short,  they  might  possess  every  possible 
qualification  to  become  diplomats,  and  in  fact 
might  be  much  more  clever  than  the  Ambassador 
himself,  hut  they  would  lack  representative  au- 
thority. 

When  any  Protestant  sect  asks  our  allegiance, 
and  invites  us  to  join  it,  its  members  generally  set 
forth  its  merits  on  the  ground  of  expediency,  and 
not  on  the  ground  that  it  has  any  special  authority 
to  demand  such  allegiance.  They  say  to  us,  "We 
are  competent  to  teach  the  Christian  Religion.  Our 
forms  and  our  platform  are  nearer  the  Gospel 
model.  Our  members  show  much  piety  and  zeal. 
Our  ministers  make  many  converts.  Our  system 
is  easily  adapted  to  the  needs  of  the  times.  We 
are  broad  and  tolerant.    What  more  could  you  ask  ? 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  59 

Are  we  not  competent  to  represent  the  Christian 
religion  ?" 

The  Churchman  replies :  "Granting  the  truth 
of  all  that  you  have  said,  the  question  still  remains, 
Whence  do  you  get  your  authority  to  teach  ?  Show 
us  the  credentials  of  your  official  commission.  You 
assume  to  represent  the  Lord  Christ  to  me,  in  that 
you  teach  in  His  Name.  Now  prove  to  me  that 
He  sent  you.  You  must  do  this  before  I  can  give 
you  my  allegiance,  because  fitness  to  teach,  and 
authority  to  teach,  are  not  the  same  thing.  I  may 
not  question  your  fitness,  I  do  question  your  au- 
thority." 

Now  St.  Paul  compares  the  authority  of  a 
Christian  minister  to  that  of  an  ambassador,  when 
he  says :  "We  are  ambassadors  on  behalf  of  Christ, 
as  though  God  were  intreating  you  by  us;  we 
beseech  you  on  behalf  of  Christ,  be  ye  reconciled 
to  God."  And  if  words  mean  anything,  certainly 
this  means  that  ministerial  authority  is  so  real, 
that  Christ  can  be  said  actually  to  speak  to  men, 
through  the  lips  of  the  Apostle. 

Precisely  this  same  principle  is  again  asserted 
when  St.  Paul  says:  "If  I  have  forgiven  any- 
thing, for  your  sakes  have  I  forgiven  it  iisr  the 
PERSON  OF  Christ,"  that  is,  as  if  Christ  absolved 
personally  through  him. 

If  then  the  central  question  between  religious 
bodies  be  one  of  authority  to  teach  in  the  Name  of 
Christ,  it  must  appear  at  once,  that  the  discussion 


60  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

of  details  of  belief,  and  organization,  and  custom, 
is  of  secondary  importance. 

If  the  Lord  by  His  Apostles  organized  one 
Cburch  to  represent  Him,  and  perpetuate  itself 
in  history,  until  you  have  determined  what  and 
where  that  Church  is,  there  is  no  use  in  discussing 
questions  about  details  of  belief,  or  matters  of 
taste  and  expediency ;  or  whether  this  sect,  or  that 
sect,  is  nearer  the  scriptural  model  than  some 
other,  or  whether  we  shall  immerse  or  pour,  or  have 
little  ritual  or  much,  or  whether  we  have  all  gone 
through  the  same  internal  emotional  experience  or 
not,  or  whether  one  sect  is  more  liberal,  more  pious, 
or  more  up  to  date,  than  another. 

These  things  may  be  right  or  wrong,  true  or 
false,  good,  bad,  or  indifferent ;  but  if  you  find  that 
the  Old  Church  exists,  and  can  give  credentials  of 
its  authority  to  teach  and  administer  sacraments, 
in  Christ's  ISTame,  then  the  presumption  would  be 
that  it  is  fitted  for  its  work;  and  even  in  matters 
of  detail,  has  probably  not  gone  hopelessly  wrong. 
ISTow  there  is  a  large  class  of  people  who  have 
argued  for  the  American  Church,  because  it  has  a 
fine  system  of  educating  the  young,  or  because  it 
has  a  dignified  worship  in  which  the  people  have 
their  share,  or  because  it  maintains  a  sober  stand- 
ard of  religious  belief  and  feeling,  or  because  its 
services  are  attractive,  or  because  it  is  conservative 
and  respectable,  all  of  which  is  unquestionably 
true.  Again,  men  have  argued  in  its  favor,  because 
it  sprang  from  the  Mother  Church  of  the  English- 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  61 

speaking  people,  and  represented  the  Church  which 
gave  us  the  English  Bible,  and  which  was  instru- 
mental in  maintaining  all  that  has  been  wise  and 
good  in  English  law  and  literature.  This  also  is 
true.  But  all  these  questions  are  matters  of  detail ; 
and  do  not  touch  the  one  question  of  importance, 
namely,  Has  this  Church  authority  to  teach  in  the 
Name  of  Christ  ?  Is  it  by  organization  and  his- 
torical inheritance  the  Apostolic  Catholic  Church, 
the  American  Catholic  Church,  in  distinction  from 
the"  Roman  Catholic  Church  which  is  foreign  and 
alien,  and  the  Protestant  sects,  which  are  self- 
created  ;  or  is  it,  on  the  other  hand,  merely  a  Prot- 
estant sect,  without  either  the  grace  or  the  wisdom 
to  recognize  its  own  insignificance? 

To  one  who  is  unfamiliar  with  the  teaching  of 
the  American  Church,  and  who  learns  its  historic 
position  for  the  first  time,  it  may  perhaps  be  a 
startling,  and  possibly  offensive  thought,  that  any 
one  religious  body  in  the  community  should  claim 
to  have  credentials  of  a  special  authority  to  teach 
in  Christ's  ITame ;  and  on  this  basis  should  claim 
the  allegiance  of  all  who  call  themselves  Chris- 
tians. Such  a  claim  may  seem  absurd,  preposter- 
ous, arrogant,  exclusive,  pretentious,  or  anything 
you  like ;  but  after  all,  the  truth  or  falsity  of  it  is 
determined  by  simple  matters  of  fact.  Eor  if  the 
Lord  Christ  did  found  and  commission  one  Church 
which  exists  to-day,  it  certainly  must  be  some  one 
religious  body  which  exists  among  others  in  any 
given  community,  and  there  must  be  some  way  of 


62  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

finding  out  which  it  is,  by  tracing  back  its  history 
and  determining  how  it  originated.  Even  though 
it  happens  to  be  small  in  numbers,  and  weak  in 
influence,  and  perhaps  even  distinguished  neither 
for  its  piety  nor  its  zeal,  nevertheless  it  still  must 
be,  by  reason  of  its  Apostolic  origin  and  historic 
descent,  in  a  special  and  peculiar  sense  the  Church 
of  Christ ;  and  if  it  is,  and  if  it  is  conscious  of  the 
fact,  it  must  have  the  courage  to  proclaim  it,  no 
matter  how  the  fact  may  happen  to  impress  others. 
The  Church's  credentials  are  open  to  investiga- 
tion. The  facts  on  which  she  bases  her  claims  are 
neither  obscure  or  uncertain.  Now,  no  Protestant 
sect  could  possibly  venture  to  teach  in  the  Name  of 
Christ,  without  claiming  some  sort  of  authority 
so  to  do.  Protestant  ministers  will  sometimes  say, 
that  their  authority  is  based  on  the  belief  that  God 
sent  them  to  preach  the  Gospel,  because  He  has  put 
a  strong  desire  to  preach  and  a  conviction  that  they 
ought  to  preach,  in  their  hearts ;  and  they  believe 
that  this  desire  is  inspired  by  the  Holy  Spirit. 
But  if  Protestants  claim  that  their  authority  rests 
on  the  fact  of  the  inward  call  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
to  preach  the  Gospel,  we  reply,  that  even  if  such  a 
call  conveyed  authority,  there  would  be  no  way  of 
proving  the  fact  of  the  call  to  any  one  but  the  man 
himself,  who  thinks  he  has  experienced  it  in  his 
own  heart.  We  cannot  see  his  heart,  and  he  may 
be  mistaken  as  to  his  call.  Again,  if  Protestants 
assert  that  God  has  blessed  their  work,  and  so  ap- 
proved of  their  position  and  authorized  them  to 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  63 

speak  in  His  Kame  by  giving  them  His  blessing, 
we  reply  that  God  blesses  the  work  of  the  Young 
Men's  Christian  Association.  Does  that  make  a 
Church  of  them,  or  authorize  them  to  administer 
sacraments  ? 

God  blesses  the  work  of  any  faithful,  devout 
man  who  strives  to  serve  Him.  Does  that  give  him 
authority  to  call  himself  a  minister  of  God  in  any 
official  sense  ?  Certainly  not ;  and  no  sect  would 
receive  him  as  such  without  some  sort  of  an  or- 
dination. 

God  certainly  blesses  the  good  works  of  men  in 
all  sorts  of  sects;  but  to  assert  that  God  thereby 
blesses,  or  authorizes,  the  sectarian  position  or 
principle,  which  is  contrary  to  His  law,  is  false; 
for  the  exact  reverse  is  true,  as  history  abundantly 
proves.  The  nemesis  of  ultimate  self-destruction 
follows  sectarianism  everywhere,  and  is  far  more 
significant  of  God's  disapproval  than  of  His  bless- 
ing. Division  and  subdivision,  the  loss  of  teaching 
authority,  and  the  inroads  of  rationalism,  these 
things  indicate  the  mind  of  God  as  to  sectarianism. 

N"ow  of  course  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the 
word  "Authority"  has  an  unpleasant  sound  to  the 
average  Protestant ;  and  that  it  is  particularly  dis- 
agreeable, when  used  to  denote  the  authority  of  the 
historic  Catholic  Church;  because  spiritual  free- 
dom from  ecclesiastical  authority  of  any  sort,  was 
supposed  to  be  a  great  principle  asserted,  and  vin- 
dicated, at  the  Reformation.  Authority  is  asso- 
ciated with  superstition  and  priestcraft,  while  in- 


64  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

dependence  is  supposed  to  be  essential  to  individual 
liberty  and  freedom  to  approach  God  without  in- 
tervention of  any  sort. 

Without  stopping  to  discuss  whether  such  a  no- 
tion of  spiritual  freedom  can  be  held  by  a  Chris- 
tian, a  moment's  thought  will  show  that  any  relig- 
ion which  has  God  for  its  author  must  be  hosed 
on  the  principle  of  authority,  the  authority  of  Him 
who  creates  it,  and  makes  its  acceptance  binding 
on  the  consciences  of  men.  If  Christianity  is  not 
based  on  the  authority  of  God,  then  certainly  we 
are  at  liberty  to  accept  or  reject  it  as  we  please; 
and  it  is  not  Divine.  Whether  or  not  any  man 
shall  be  a  Christian,  will  be  merely  a  question  of 
taste  and  not  one  of  obligation  and  obedience. 

The  fact  is  not  sufficiently  recognized  by  Prot- 
estants, that  acceptance  of  the  Lord  Christ  in  any 
real  sense,  is  not  primarily  an  act  of  love  or  trust 
simply,  but  it  is  an  act  of  submission  to  Him  as 
the  Son  of  God;  the  recognition  of  the  relation 
which  must  exist,  between  a  creature  and  his 
Creator;  a  relation  which  is  expressed  by  author- 
ity on  one  side,  and  obedience  on  the  other.  There 
would  be  no  sense  in  loving  Christ,  or  trusting  Him 
for  our  salvation,  unless  we  first  admit  that  He  is 
what  He  claimed  to  be,  the  God  who  creates  us, 
and  who  is  to  judge  us;  and  it  was  because  He  is 
God,  that  He  spoke  as  one  having  authority. 

So  to  believe  in  Him  in  any  real  sense,  is  to 
believe  the  one  thing  which  makes  Him  what  He 
is,  the  one  fact,  the  acceptance  of  which  carries 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  65 

wdth  it  the  obligation  of  obedience.  Our  Lord 
Himself  constantly  made  obedience  the  test  of 
faith.  "He  that  hath  My  commandments  and 
keepeth  them,  he  it  is  that  loveth  Me."  "Ye  are 
My  friends,  if  ye  do  the  things  that  I  command 
you."  Now  it  may  be  said  that  all  this  is  true  of 
Christ.  We  can  accept  and  obey  His  authority. 
What  we  object  to,  is  the  authority  of  man,  or  a 
Church,  which  comes  between  us  and  Christ. 

We  reply,  that  to  accept  Christ's  authority  at 
all,  or  in  any  sense,  is  to  admit  His  right  to  dele- 
gate it  if  He  sees  fit,  to  whom  He  pleases.  And 
if  He  does  so  delegate  it,  then  recognition  of  those 
He  sends  and  commissions  to  represent  Him,  is 
recognition  of  Him,  and  is  an  act  of  obedience  to 
Him  personally.  And  this  is  precisely  what  our 
Lord  Himself  says,  in  the  plainest  language, 
speaking  of  His  Apostles:  "As  the  Father  hath 
sent  Me,  even  so  send  I  you."  "Whosoever  shall  not 
receive  you  nor  hear  your  words,  when  ye  go  forth 
out  of  that  house  or  that  city,  shake  off  the  dust  of 
your  feet.  Verily  I  say  unto  you,  it  shall  be  more 
tolerable  for  the  land  of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah  in 
the  Day  of  Judgment,  than  for  that  city"  (St. 
Matt.  X.  14).  "He  that  heareth  you,  heareth  Me; 
and  he  that  rejecteth  you,  rejecteth  Me ;  and  he 
that  rejecteth  Me,  rejecteth  Him  that  sent  Me  (St. 
Luke  X.  16). 

Surely  our  Lord  never  could  have  used  such 
words  as  these,  unless  to  reject  those  whom  He 
sends  is  in  some  very  dreadful  way,  to  reject  Him. 


66  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

This  may  be  a  hard  truth  to  receive.  It  may  run 
counter  to  our  pride  and  sense  of  independence.  It 
may  violate  our  notions  of  Christian  liberty;  but 
after  all,  for  one  who  loves  the  Lord  Christ  and 
wills  to  obey  Him,  the  one  question  which  must 
be  faced  sooner  or  later  is  this:  What  has  the 
Lord  done  ?  Has  He  delegated  His  authority  to  a 
Church  which  exists  to-day,  and  if  He  has  so  done, 
must  I  not  recognize  it  as  part  of  my  obedience 
to  Him,  to  find  and  obey  that  Church?  If  then 
Catholic  Churchmen  are  contending  not  for  this 
or  that  detail  of  belief  or  organization,  not  for  mat- 
ters of  choice  or  personal  j^reference  or  expediency, 
but  for  the  vindication  of  some  great  principle 
which  is  vital  to  the  very  existence  of  the  Church 
itself,  then  the  whole  question  is  lifted  out  of  the 
rut  of  ordinary  controversy,  and  assumes  an  im- 
portance which  must  be  obvious  to  any  one  who 
calls  himself  a  Christian. 

As  between  English  Catholics  and  Roman 
Catholics,  the  question  of  authority  resolves  itself 
to  this :  Was  Catholic  authority  conferred  by  the 
Lord  Christ  on  all  the  Apostles,  and  through  them 
on  the  Episcopate  as  a  whole,  or  on  one  Apostle  in 
the  Church,  St.  Peter,  and  through  him  on  the 
Popes  of  Rome  ?  As  Protestantism  seems  to  be  a 
religion  of  individuals,  each  man  for  himself,  so 
Romanism  seems  to  a  Catholic  Churchman  to  be 
also  ^n  individual  matter,  one  man  for  himself; 
and  in  both  cases,  the  Church  as  such  seems  to 
count  for  nothing. 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  67 

Authority,  as  we  believe,  was  conferred,  not 
on  St.  Peter  alone,  but  on  all  the  Apostles,  by  our 
Lord;  and  there  is  no  evidence  that  St,  Peter  re- 
ceived any  authority  which  was  peculiar  to  him- 
self, as  head  of  the  Church,  which  he  could  trans- 
mit; neither  is  there  the  slightest  shadow  of  evi- 
dence that  he  ever  did  transmit  such  authority  to 
the  Bishops  of  Rome.  We  will  take  up  this  mat- 
ter later  in  tlie  argmnent. 

Now  doubtless  it  will  be  said  just  at  this  point, 
that  if  the  Catholic  Church  claims  to  be  the  old 
Church,  to  possess  special  historic  authority  to  teach 
and  administer  sacraments  and  discipline  in  the 
l^ame  of  the  Lord  Christ,  by  virtue  of  a  commis- 
sion inherited  from  Him,  it  makes  an  arrogant 
assumption  of  superiority  over  various  Christian 
denominations  which  do  much  good,  and  which 
God  has  blessed,  and  which  are  very  much  larger 
in  numbers ;  and  that  therefore  such  an  assumption 
is  narrow  and  uncharitable.  We  reply  to  this 
objection,  that  the  claims  of  the  Church  rest  simply 
on  historic  facts  which  make  her  what  she  is ;  and 
which  were  settled  by  the  providence  of  God  cen- 
turies ago;  and  that  any  charge  of  arrogance  can 
neither  make  nor  unmake  them.  With  the  mere 
assertion  of  a  fact,  or  a  series  of  facts,  charity  as 
such  has  nothing  whatever  to  do. 

Charity  deals  with  motives,  not  facts;  with 
the  motive  which  inspires  a  man  to  assert  certain 
facts.'  For  example :  the  claims  of  the  Church  may 
be  taught  in  a  narrow  and  arrogant  spirit,  as  if 


68  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

Churchmen  felt  themselves  personally  superior  to 
Protestants;  or  they  can  be  taught  in  a  gentle, 
humble  spirit,  as  if  Churchmen  were  very  con- 
scious of  their  own  shortcomings,  and  were  "ap- 
preciative of  the  holy  lives  of  Protestants ;  but  as  a 
matter  of  fact,  the  spirit  in  which  they  are  taught 
does  not  make  or  unmake  the  facts  themselves,  for 
these  things  are  matters  of  history.  Doubtless 
arrogance,  narrowness,  and  uncharitableness  do 
exist  in  the  American  Church,  just  as  they  do 
wherever  there  is  any  organization  composed  of 
fallible  men;  but  that  such  sentiments  are  the 
natural  or  necessary  product  of  her  claim  of  au- 
thority to  speak  in  the  Lord's  l^ame,  is  most  cer- 
tainly not  true.  Must  a  man  repudiate  his  an- 
cestry, or  deny  his  identity,  or  give  away  his 
inheritance,  and  play  false  to  his  birthright,  just 
because  some  other  man,  situated  differently,  says 
he  is  arrogant  if  he  does  not?  Is  an  ambassador 
ever  accused  of  being  arrogant,  uncharitable,  or 
narrow,  just  because  he  claims  to  be  the  authorized 
representative  of  his  government,  and  to  be  able 
to  produce  the  credentials  of  his  commission  for 
this,  and  refuses  to  recognize  other  men  as  ambas- 
sadors without  such  credentials  ?  Surely  not.  The 
Church  has  not  the  slightest  desire  to  deny  any- 
thing which  can  be  truthfully  said  of  the  devotion, 
zeal,  and  holy  lives  of  Protestants.  !Nor  does  she 
deny  that  a  man  may  be  a  Churchman,  and  set 
forth  the  claims  of  the  Church  in  a  miserably  intol- 
erant and  self-righteous  spirit,  while  he  himself 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  69 

is  wanting  in  personal  holiness:  but  the  existence 
of  such  persons  in  no  way  weakens  the  force  of  a 
logical  argument  based  on  an  appeal  to  history; 
and  the  claims  of  the  Church  are  not  set  forth  to 
show  the  personal  superiority  of  Churchmen,  but 
to  induce  others  to  share  with  Churchmen  the 
special  blessings  which  they  think  they  enjoy. 

We  come  now  to  the  point  where  we  can  con- 
sider the  question  which  is  first  and  foremost  in  a 
Churchman's  plea.  Did  the  Lord  and  His  Apos- 
tles found  a  Church  which  was  to  be  perpetual, 
and  was  to  represent  Him  by  His  authority,  to  all 
men,  in  all  time  ?  We  will  endeavor  to  answer  this 
in  the  next  chapter. 


CHAPTER  V 

DID  OUR  LORD  ESTABLISH  A  CHURCH  ? 

I 

fOR  every  man  who  calls  himself  a  Christian, 
everything  that  our  Lord  did,  and  everything 
that  He  said,  must  be  of  supreme  importance ;  and 
this  is  true  because  He  who  speaks  is  the  Son  of 
God,  and  from  His  word  there  can  be  no  appeal. 

Moreover,  this  is  true,  whatever  He  says, 
whether  He  speaks  concerning  faith  and  holy  liv- 
ing, or  concerning  the  Church  and  its  sacraments. 
We  have  not  the  slightest  right  to  discriminate 
between  these  things,  and  virtually  to  say  that  we 
will  accept  what  the  Lord  says  about  Christian 
morals  and  sentiments,  but  we  will  hold  our  own 
opinions  about  Church  matters ;  and  men  virtually 
do  this  when  they  accept  His  teaching  of  Christian 
ethics  as  binding,  while  they  ignore  or  explain 
away  what  He  says  about  the  Church.  To  reject 
our  Lord's  word  in  any  particular,  is  to  repudiate 
His  authority  and  to  reject  Him ;  because,  being 
God,  He  cannot  err  in  the  slightest  particular. 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  71 

Moreover  we  believe  that  the  Holy  Ghost  is 
God;  and  so  whatever  He  does,  comes  with  the 
authority  of  God,  no  matter  whether  He  inspires 
the  Apostles  to  write  the  New  Testament,  or  guides 
them  in  the  work  of  organizing  the  Church:  both 
New  Testament  and  Church  are  His  work,  and  rest 
on  precisely  the  same  Divine  Authority.  We  can- 
not accept  parts  of  the  Holy  Spirit's  work  as  bind- 
ing on  our  consciences,  and  reject  other  parts  as  of 
no  particular  consequence,  for  in  so  doing  we 
reject  Him. 

For  a  Christian  man  who  undertakes  to  inform 
himself  about  the  Church,  the  question  of  first  im- 
portance is.  What  has  the  Lord  done?  What  has 
the  Lord  said?  Has  He  said  or  done  anything, 
or  are  we  left  to  our  own  choice  about  it,  to  join 
any  sect  we  please,  or  none  at  all  if  we  do  not 
please,  or  to  make  a  new,  up-to-date  sect  for  our- 
selves, according  to  our  own  views  of  the  Bible, 
if  we  think  we  have  some  new  light  ?  The  com- 
mon Protestant  impression  seems  to  be,  that  our 
Lord  taught  men  to  be  good,  gave  them  a  book,  and 
then  left  them  to  find  out  what  it  meant,  and  do 
as  they  liked.  We  often  hear  men  say,  "Christ  left 
no  command  to  belong  to  any  particular  Church. 
He  taught  no  creed.  He  merely  taught  men  to  love 
their  neighbors,  to  be  honest  and  clean,  and  to  have 
faith  in  Him."  Well,  then,  let  us  turn  to  the  New 
Testament  and  find  out  exactly  what  is  the  truth 
about  the  matter. 

Now  we  must  start  with  a  great  fact  of  Scrip- 


72  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

ture,  namely  this :  That  when  God  willed  to  teach 
and  save  men,  before  the  Son  of  God  became  Incar- 
nate, He  did  it  by  establishing  a  visible  Church, 
through  which,  and  in  which,  He  entered  into  spe- 
cial convenant  relations  with  men,  and  gave  them  a 
special  revelation  of  truth.  This  Church  was  estab- 
lished by  Moses  under  explicit  directions  from  God, 
given  on  Mount  Sinai.  It  had  a  rite  of  initiation, 
by  which  men  were  made  members  of  it,  ordinances 
of  sacrificial  worship,  a  priesthood  of  three  orders 
perpetuated  by  hereditary  succession,  a  code  of 
moral  law,  a  temple  where  God  manifested  His 
presence  by  a  visible  sign,  an  established  ritual 
order  for  worship,  and  a  year  of  Church  fasts  and 
festivals.  God's  covenant  was  with  this  Church, 
and  to  share  that  covenant,  men  had  to  be  members 
of  it.  God  never  dealt  with  a  Jew  as  an  individ- 
ual alone  in  saving  him,  but  always  as  a  member 
of  the  great  Church  Body. 

Now  we  must-  bear  in  mind,  that  the  Lord 
Christ  was  brought  up  in  this  Church,  was  made 
a  member  of  it  when  eight  days  old,  was  pre- 
sented in  the  temple  at  the  end  of  forty  days,  that 
He  was  taught  its  law,  and  attended  its  worship, 
and  kept  its  festivals,  hy  His  own  deliberate  choice 
as  God,  as  part  of  His  own  wonderful  submission 
to  God's  law  for  men,  and  as  His  recognition  of  the 
great  Church  principle,  in  the  scheme  of  saving 
men  from  sin. 

The  Lord  was  emphatically  a  Churchman,  and 
strenuously  upheld  the  authority  of  the  Church  to 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  73 

His  disciples.  He  tells  His  disciples,  "The  Scribes 
and  the  Pharisees  sit  in  Moses'  seat.  All  there- 
fore whatsoever  they  bid  you,  these  do  and  observe : 
but  do  not  ye  after  their  works ;  for  they  say  and 
do  not"  (St.  Matt,  xxiii.  1).  When  our  Lord 
healed  a  man  of  leprosy,  He  sent  him  to  the  priest 
in  accordance  with  the  ritual  law  to  have  his  cure 
certified.  Again  our  Lord  said  of  receiving  Bap- 
tism, "thus  it  becometh  us  to  fulfil  all  righteous- 
ness." 

Now  men  say  to  us,  "We  admit  that  there  was 
a  Jewish  Church,  and  that  Christ  recognized  its 
authority  and  observed  its  laws,  but  later  He  abol- 
ished all  this;  and  established  a  purely  spiritual 
religion."  We  reply,  that  Christ  Himself  said, 
"I  came  not  to  destroy,  but  to  fulfil  the  law." 
That  is,  the  old  method  or  principle  was  retained, 
but  the  old  Church  was  filled  full  of  new  grace, 
so  that  ordinances  became  Christian  sacraments. 
The  old  law  was  retained,  but  it  was  filled  full 
of  new  motives  and  new  inspirations.  If  God 
abruptly  altered  all  His  methods  of  dealing  with 
men  and  established  a  purely  spiritual  religion 
after  suddenly  discarding  a  purely  formal  re- 
ligion, either  in  the  first  instance  He  was  radically 
mistaken,  or  immediately  after  Christ  came,  hu- 
man nature  underwent  a  sudden  and  complete 
change,  was  so  amazingly  spiritualized  that  men 
had  to  be  treated  as  pure  spirits,  disembodied 
souls,  or  angels,  rather  than  as  men  who  could  be 
taught  through  bodily  senses,  by  outward  signs  and 


74  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

forms,  just  exactly  as  men  are  taught  everywhere 
to-day,  and  as  they  always  must  be  taught  until 
they  get  to  Paradise.  Now  natural  science  teaches 
us  most  distinctly  that  God  develops  life  in  nature 
always  by  a  continuous  process ;  and  that  He  never 
suddenly  revolutionizes  His  methods,  makes  sud- 
den leaps  or  breaks,  or  treats  the  life  for  which 
He  is  caring,  one  way  one  minute  and  another  the 
next.  The  new  comes  always  and  everywhere  by 
gradual  development  out  of  the  old;  and  if  the 
Christian  Church  revolutionized  all  God's  pre- 
vious methods  of  saving  men,  then  surely  it  can- 
not be  God's  work,  or  else  God's  previous  work 
must  have  been  a  failure. 

We  read  that  the  Law  was  our  schoolmaster  to 
bring  us  to  Christ;  and  if  this  be  true,  then  cer- 
tainly the  old  system  was  in  many  respects  essen- 
tially Christian,  was  prophetic  and  preparatory 
for  the  Christian  Church,  and  so  there  could  not 
be  any  vital  antagonism  between  them.  The  strong 
presumption  then  is,  that  if  God  saved  men  under 
the  old  dispensation  by  forming  a  visible  Church, 
giving  it  a  special  revelation  and  covenant  priv- 
ileges, and  then  incorporating  individual  men  into 
it,  He  will  do  the  same  thing  under  the  new  order, 
without  violent  change  and  without  repudiating 
His  old  methods  of  dealing  with  men  in  matters  of 
religion. 

]^ow  right  here  we  are  met  by  an  assertion 
which  is  in  one  sense  true ;  and  which  is  supposed 
to  dispose  of  the  whole  matter,  in  a  summary  way. 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  75 

It  is  this:  Christ  did  not  prescribe  in  the  New 
Testament  any  explicit  directions  for  making  any 
one  Church,  and  none  are  to  be  found  there.  We 
reply,  most  certainly  not.  But  why  not  ?  Simply 
because  any  such  directions  would  be  wholly 
uncalled  for  and  unnecessary,  inasmuch  as  the 
Church  had  already  been  founded  by  Him,  and  its 
organization  determined,  some  sixty  years  before 
the  ISlew  Testament  was  completed,  and  several 
hundred  years  before  the  whole  Christian  Church 
had  it.  What,  pray,  would  be  the  use  of  giving 
plans  for  doing  that  which  was  already  done,  for 
making  that  which  was  already  made,  in  giving 
exact  details  about  that  with  which  Christians 
had  long  been  familiar,  for  settling  matters  which 
had  never  been  disputed?  The  Bible,  which  was 
written  in  the  Church,  by  members  of  the  Church, 
cannot  be  expected  to  plan  out  the  making  of  an 
organization  which  made  the  Bible  itself. 

Protestants  as  a  rule  baptize  children,  observe 
the  first  day  of  the  week,  Sunday,  and  admit 
women  to  the  communion ;  but  there  is  not  any 
explicit  direction  in  the  Bible  to  do  any  one  of 
these  things.  They  simply  follow  the  tradition  of 
the  Catholic  Church  in  these  observances,  which 
is,  that  children  were  baptized  from  the  first,  that 
Sunday  became  the  weekly  memorial  of  our  Lord's 
resurrection,  and  that  women  converts  received  the 
blessed  sacrament  as  well  as  men.  Indirect  allu- 
sions to  these  facts  do  occur  in  the  Scriptures,  but 
there  is  no  recorded  command  enforcing  them  any- 


76  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

where  to  be  found.  So  Protestants  could  not  pos- 
sibly defend  their  own  system  on  the  ground  that 
nothing  is  of  obligation  which  the  ISTew  Testament 
does  not  actually  command  and  direct.  We  believe 
that  we  have  a  right  to  expect  that  the  New  Testa- 
ment would  allude  to  the  Church  which  already 
existed,  perhaps  with  sufficient  distinctness  to 
determine  much  concerning  the  nature  of  the 
Church ;  just  as  we  would  expect  that  we  could 
learn  much  of  the  organization  of  the  army  from 
the  letters  of  its  officers,  or  of  the  nature  of  any 
society  or  fraternity  if  we  could  see  correspondence 
between  its  various  chapters.  So  we  come  back  to 
the  central  question,  Did  the  Lord  establish  a 
visible  Church? 

We  must  pause  and  try  to  realize  the  impor- 
ance  of  just  this  one  issue,  as  best  we  can.  We 
must  bear  in  mind  that  He  is  God  Almighty ;  and 
that  whatever  He  does,  as  well  as  whatever  He 
says,  must  be  of  eternal  moment  to  us ;  and  that 
for  this  reason  a  God-made  Church  and  a  man- 
made  sect,  must  be  poles  apart ;  the  one  may  closely 
concern  the  salvation  of  our  souls,  while  the  other 
may  not  be  of  any  vital  consequence.  So  we  must 
proceed  slowly,  and  try  to  take  in  the  significance 
of  each  step  by  itself. 

Now  what  are  the  scriptural  facts  of  the  case  ? 
Exactly  what  did  our  Lord  do,  and  what  did  His 
Apostles  do,  under  the  guidance  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  ? 

In  the  first  place,  what  did  Christ  begin  preach- 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  77 

ing  about  ?  About  bolj  living,  charity,  gentleness, 
and  morality?  ISTo.  He  came  preaching  first  of 
all  about  the  Kingdom  of  God ;  and  the  words  are 
repeated  again  and  again,  "The  Kingdom  of  God 
is  at  hand."  Well,  then,  what  is  this  Kingdom? 
Is  it  Heaven,  or  Paradise?  No,  because  in  His 
parables  which  describe  it,  our  Lord  tells  us  that 
this  Kingdom  will  contain  both  good  and  bad  peo- 
ple. He  likens  it  to  a  net,  holding  good  and  bad 
fish;  a  field  of  wheat  and  tares;  a  flock  of  sheep 
and  goats;  in  short  a  Kingdom  in  which  both 
good  and  bad  men  can  live  side  by  side ;  and  so 
a  Kingdom  in  this  world,  not  in  Heaven. 

What  is  a  kingdom  in  this  world?  Is  it  not 
an  organized  state,  with  a  king  at  its  head,  having 
its  own  laws  for  self-government  and  for  perpet- 
uating its  own  existence,  and  commissioned  officers 
to  execute  these  laws,  its  methods  of  naturalizing 
foreigners,  its  territorial  boundaries,  and  its  duties 
and  privileges  of  citizenship,  and  its  own  type  of 
civilization  ?  A  kingdom  is  an  organized,"  active, 
visible  body  of  men;  not  a  moral  philosophy,  nor 
a  lot  of  speculations  about  a  book,  nor  a  group  of 
rival  republics,  nor  a  ghostly  collection  of  invisible 
souls  which  nobody  can  locate  or  identify. 

'Now  it  is  said  at  this  point,  Christ  says  the 
Kingdom  of  God  is  within  you ;  therefore  it  cannot 
be  outside  of  you,  as  a  visible  Church  is.  Well, . 
why  not  ?  The  Kingdom  of  England  is  within  the 
hearts  of  its  loyal  subjects;  but  the  government 
is  also  an  objective  reality.     But  our  Lord  was 


78  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

talking  to  the  Pharisees,  and  the  Kingdom  of  God 
was  most  certainly  not  within  them,  in  any  pos- 
sible sense,  for  they  were  a  bad  lot.  Moreover 
the  word  translated  within  also  means  among; 
and  the  Kingdom  was  certainly  among  the  Phar- 
isees, in  the  persons  of  the  Apostles.  As  a  matter 
of  fact  the  Kingdom  of  God,  the  Church,  did  not 
come  with  observation,  in  the  sense  that  the  Phar- 
isees thought  it  would,  with  the  pomp  and  display 
of  a  civil  kingdom,  but  it  came  sufficiently  under 
observation  to  be  found  without  the  slightest 
trouble  by  its  enemies  when  they  wanted  to  per- 
secute it,  and  it  has  been  the  most  constantly 
observed  organization  in  history,  ever  since.  We 
will  deal  with  the  question  of  the  so-called  "invis- 
ible Church"  later  on. 

Now  our  Lord  said  that  except  a  man  be  born 
of  water  and  the  Spirit  he  cannot  enter  the  King- 
dom; and  the  earliest  Christian  writers,  like  Jus- 
tin Martyr,  assert  that  these  words  referred  to 
Baptism  with  water,  in  the  Name  of  the  Holy 
Trinity.  If  men  entered  the  Kingdom  by  a  visible 
rite  through  Baptism,  then  certainly  it  would  be 
an  easy  matter  to  tell  who  were  members  of  it,  and 
who  were  not ;  and  it  must  necessarily  be  a  visible 
Kingdom. 

Having  thus  proclaimed  the  coming  of  the 
Kingdom,  the  Church,  the  Lord  takes  the  first 
active  step  in  establishing  it.  "He  appointed 
twelve,  that  they  might  be  with  Him,  and  that 
He  might  send  them  forth  to  preach"  (Mark  iii. 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  79 

14).  To  these  men  He  gives  the  technical  name  of 
Apostles.  He  says  to  them,  "As  ye  go,  preach, 
saying  The  Kingdom  of  Heaven  is  at  hand" 
(Matt.  X.  7).  "I  appoint  unto  you  a  Kingdom, 
as  My  Father  even  appointed  unto  Me"  (Luke 
xxii.  29).  "Ye  did  not  choose  Me,  but  I  chose 
you  and  appointed  you"  (John  xv.  16).  In  other 
words,  the  Church  from  the  very  first  step  is 
Clwist's  work,  and  not  man's.  Men  do  not  get 
together,  having  become  Christians,  and  make  a 
Church  of  their  own.  Christ  does  the  choosing, 
and  begins  by  selecting  His  ministry,  and  a  great 
deal  of  His  instruction  is  directed  towards  pre- 
paring them  for  their  work.  St.  Peter  confesses 
his  faith  in  our  Lord  saying,  "Thou  art  the  Christ, 
the  Son  of  the  Living  God."  Our  Lord  replies, 
"Thou  art  Peter,  and  upon  this  Rock  I  will  build 
My  Church;  and  the  gates  of  Hades  shall  not 
prevail  against  it.  And  I  will  give  unto  thee  the 
keys  of  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven ;  and  whatsoever 
thou  shalt  bind  on  earth,  shall  be  bound  in 
Heaven :  and  whatsoever  thou  shalt  loose  on  earth, 
shall  be  loosed  in  Heaven"  (Matt.  xvi.  18,  19). 

This  commission  here  promised  to  St.  Peter, 
was  subsequently  conferred  on  all  the  Apostles 
(Matt,  xviii.  18). 

]!^ow  notice  the  import  of  our  Lord's  words: 
"I  will  build  My  Church."  This  is  a  definite 
promise,  and  for  our  Lord  to  promise,  is  to  fulfil. 
How  about  the  Protestant  statement  that  Christ 
never  built  any  Church?     Again,  Christ  does  the 


80  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

building,  not  men,  and  the  thing  He  builds  is  not 
many  churches,  but  His  Church,  not  this  man's  or 
that  man's  Church,  but  His  Church;  His  because 
He  makes  it  and  commissions  it. 

The  gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail  against  it. 
But  the  gates  of  hell  certainly  did  prevail,  if  at 
the  Reformation  the  Church  had  become  apostate, 
or  hopelessly  corrupt,  so  that  it  was  necessary  to 
make  a  lot  of  substitutes  for  it.  A  Churchman 
fails  to  see  how  the  abandonment  of  Christ's 
Church  at  the  Reformation  can  possibly  be  justi- 
fied, except  on  just  this  supposition:  that  the  gates 
of  hell  did  prevail,  notwithstanding  our  Lord's 
promise  that  they  would  not  prevail. 

Again,  our  Lord  promises  the  guidance  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  to  the  Apostles,  saying,  "When  He, 
the  Spirit  of  Truth,  is  come.  He  shall  guide  you 
into  all  the  truth.  The  Holy  Spirit,  whom  the 
Father  will  send  in  My  ISTame,  He  shall  teach  you 
all  things,  and  bring  to  your  remembrance  all  that 
I  said  unto  you"  (John  xiv.  26,  and  xvi.  13). 

When  our  Lord  instituted  the  sacrament  of  His 
Body  and  Blood,  He  bade  His  Apostles,  Do  this, 
or  perform  this  service,  for  a  memorial  of  Him. 
St.  Paul  commenting  on  our  Lord's  words  at  the 
institution  says,  "As  often  as  ye  eat  this  Bread  and 
drink  this  Cup,  ye  proclaim  the  Lord's  Death  till 
He  come"  (I.  Cor.  xi.  26),  implying  the  perpetuity 
of  the  Apostolic  order. 

After  our  Lord's  resurrection  from  the  dead, 
He   again  meets  His  Apostles,   and  gives   them 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  81 

their  ministerial  commission,  sajing,  "Peace  be 
unto  you ;  as  the  Father  hath  sent  Me  even  so  send 
I  you.  And  when  He  had  said  this,  He  breathed 
on  them  and  saith  unto  them,  Receive  ye  the  Holy 
Ghost:  Whosesoever  sins  ye  forgive  they  are  for- 
given unto  them;  and  whosesoever  sins  ye  retain, 
they  are  retained"  (John  xx.  21). 

•  IsTotice  what  these  words  imply.  First,  our 
Lord  ordains  them  by  an  outward  sign,  breathing 
on  them ;  He  gives  them  the  gift  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  and  imparts  to  them  His  own  authority 
from  the  Father,  to  minister  in  His  Kame  and 
in  some  real  sense  to  forgive  sins. 

Could  any  words  convey  a  ministerial  commis- 
sion involving  divine  authority  more  distinctly  and 
uncompromisingly  than  these  ? 

Again  our  Lord  says  to  them:  "All  authority 
hath  been  given  unto  Me  in  Heaven  and  on  earth. 
Go  ye  therefore  and  make  disciples  of  all  the  na- 
tions, baptizing  them  in  the  Name  of  the  Father 
and  of  the  Son  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost;  teaching 
them  to  observe  all  things  whatsoever  I  com- 
manded you,  and  lo  I  am  with  you  alway,  even 
unto  the  end  of  the  world"  (Matt,  xxviii.  18). 
In  these  words,  our  Lord  gives  the  Apostles  a 
commission  to  baptize,  and  teach,  and  He  promises 
to  be  with  them  unto  the  end  of  the  world,  always. 
!N^ow  either  our  Lord  speaks  to  them  as  individuals, 
or  as  a  continuous  ministerial  order.  As  individ- 
uals they  would  soon  pass  away ;  therefore  it  could 
be  only  as  a  continuous  order,  that  our  Lord  could 


82  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

be  with  them  always,  unto  the  end  of  the  world. 
Here  is  the  promise  of  the  perpetuity  of  the  Apos- 
tolic ministry.  The  transfer  of  His  own  authority 
was  so  real,  that  He  could  say  of  them  thus  or- 
dained, "He  that  receiveth  you  receiveth  Me" 
(Matt.  X.  40).  "Verily  I  say  unto  you,  whatso- 
ever ye  shall  bind  on  earth  shall  be  bound  in 
Heaven,  and  whatsoever  ye  shall  loose  on  earth, 
shall  be  loosed  in  Heaven"  (Matt,  xviii.  17-18). 

After  He  had  commissioned  the  Apostles,  our 
Lord  told  them  to  wait  at  Jerusalem  for  the 
promised  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  said:  "Ye 
shall  receive  power  when  the  Holy  Ghost  is  come 
upon  you;  and  ye  shall  be  my  witnesses  both  in 
Jerusalem,  and  in  all  Judea  and  Samaria,  and 
unto  the  uttermost  parts  of  the  earth"  (Acts  i.  8). 
Here  again  the  Apostolic  order  is  appointed  to 
be  witnesses,  to  the  uttermost  parts  of  the  earth. 
But  within  seventy  years  every  one  of  the  original 
twelve  would  be  dead;  so  if  they  were  to  witness 
to  the  uttermost  parts  of  the  earth,  it  must  be  as 
a  continuous  ministerial  order,  and  not  as  individ- 
uals. 

Let  us  now  sum  up  our  Lord's  acts  thus  far. 

First.  He  selects  twelve  men,  and  calls  them 
Apostles.  Second.  He  instructs  them  about  the 
Church.  Third.  He  institutes  the  blessed  sacra- 
ment, and  commissions  them  to  celebrate  the 
Eucharistic  sacrifice.  Fourth.  He  gives  His  com- 
mission  to  teach,  baptize,  absolve,  and  administer 
discipline,  in  His  Name,  and  by  His  authority. 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  83 

bj  an  outward  sign  of  ordination,  which  conveyed 
the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost  to  them.  Fifth.  He 
promises  the  perpetuity  of  the  Apostolic  minister- 
ial order  to  the  end  of  the  world,  and  the  uttermost 
parts  of  the  earth.  Sixth.  He  promises  to  ratify 
in  Heaven  their  ministerial  acts.  Seventh.  He 
promises  the  blessing  of  His  perpetual  presence. 

Now  we  ask.  What  more  could  our  Lord  pos- 
sibly have  done,  or  said,  that  would  have  em- 
phasized the  divine  origin  and  authority  of  the 
Apostolic  ministry  of  the  Christian  Church? 

It  is  difficult  to  conceive  of  language  more 
forceful,  more  definite,  and  more  far-reaching, 
than  that  which  He  certainly  did  use,  in  thus  form- 
ing the  ministerial  nucleus  of  His  Church.  Words 
from  the  lips  of  God  Incarnate  cannot  be  mean- 
ingless, or  overdrawn,  or  ill-chosen,  and  liable  to 
convey  false  notions  of  His  meaning,  to  men  whom 
He  came  to  save.  Everything  that  He  has  said, 
and  everything  that  He  has  done,  so  far,  is  not 
merely  out  of  harmony  with  the  Protestant  theory 
of  the  origin  of  the  Church,  but  it  flatly  contra- 
dicts it,  in  the  most  unmistakable  terms. 

After  our  Lord's  resurrection,  we  read  that 
He  showed  Himself  to  His  Apostles,  "appearing 
unto  them  by  the  space  of  forty  days  and  speaking 
the  things  pertaining  to  the  Kingdom  of  God" 
(Acts  i.  3).  Thus  during  these  forty  days.  He 
gives  them  His  last  instruction  about  the  Church 
which  they  were  to  complete  under  the  guidance 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,    l^ow  we  do  not  know  what  all 


84  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

these  instructions  were,  but  we  have  a  reasonably 
sure  ground  of  inferring  what  many  of  them  were. 

For  example,  if  an  Admiral  of  the  Navy  were 
to  summon  the  captains  of  his  squadron  on  board 
the  flagship  for  a  conference,  and  immediately 
afterward  they  were  to  return  to  their  ships  and 
begin  at  once  a  concerted  plan  of  action,  in  an 
orderly  and  systematic  way,  issuing  the  same  com- 
mands on  their  individual  vessels,  we  would  natur- 
ally infer  that  that  which  they  did,  they  had  been 
told  to  do  by  their  commanding  ofl&cer,  when  he 
conferred  with  them  privately. 

So  when  the  Apostles,  immediately  after  Pen- 
tecost, start  out  and  everywhere  work  according 
to  the  same  plan,  teach  the  same  truth,  and  ad- 
minister the  same  sacraments,  we  infer  that  they 
were  simply  carrying  out  our  Lord's  orders  and 
instructions,  given  during  the  forty  days  of  re- 
treat and  conference.  For  example,  whenever  men 
and  women  were  baptized,  the  Apostles  laid  their 
hands  on  them,  and  they  received  the  Holy  Ghost 
(Acts  viii.  lY  and  xix.  6).  So  though  there  is 
no  recorded  command  of  our  Lord  to  administer 
Confirmation,  yet  we  infer  that  He  gave  such 
command  privately,  because  Confirmation  was  a 
universal  practice  from  the  first  throughout  the 
Church,  and  is  spoken  of  as  one  of  the  principles, 
"the  first  principles  of  Christ,"  in  Hebrews  vi.  1-2. 
It  is  difficult  to  imagine  how  there  could  have  been 
this  universal  agreement  about  such  a  matter,  un- 
less the  Lord  Himself  had  provided  for  it. 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  85 

Again,  St.  James  says  that  the  elders  of  the 
Church  are  to  pray  over  the  sick,  anointing  them 
with  oil  in  the  Name  of  the  Lord  (James  v.  14). 
But  who  would  dare  to  do  this  in  the  Lor^d's  Name, 
unless  the  Lord  had  at  some  time  authorized  such 
a  proceeding  ?  So,  no  doubt,  much  of  the  uniform 
tradition  of  the  Church  about  doctrine,  organiza- 
tion, and  worship,  had  its  origin  in  our  Lord's 
instructions  given  during  these  great  forty  days 
between  His  resurrection  and  His  ascension,  in 
things  pertaining  to  the  Kingdom  of  God. 

!N^ow  in  view  of  what  has  been  said,  it  will 
be  seen  how  utterly  misleading  and  untruthful  is 
the  assertion  that  the  Lord  Christ  taught  merely 
a  spiritual  religion,  and  left  men  to  organize  them- 
selves into  churches  or  not,  as  they  pleased;  and 
that  it  did  not  make  any  matter  one  way  or  the 
other,  provided  the  heart  was  all  right.  If  words 
mean  anything,  these  words  of  our  Lord  are  of 
terribly  solemn  import:  "Ye  did  not  choose  Me 
but  I  chose  you."  "As  My  Father  hath  sent  Me, 
even  so  send  I  you."  "He  that  heareth  you  heareth 
Me."  "Lo  I  am  with  you  alway,  even  unto  the  end 
of  the  world."  "Go,  teach,  baptize,  and  do  this  in 
remembrance  of  Me."  "Whosesoever  sins  ye  remit 
they  are  remitted  unto  them."  "Whatsoever  ye  shall 
bind  on  earth  shall  be  bound  in  Heaven."  These 
words,  if  they  mean  anything,  mean  the  inaugur- 
ation of  a  Kingdom  which  the  Lord  alone  creates, 
and  which  He  endows  with  divine  authority  to 
represent  Him  to  all  men.    And  remembering  that 


86  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

thej  come  from  the  lips  of  God  Incarnate,  it  is  the 
part  of  humility  to  try  reverently  to  understand 
them,  and  it  is  the  part  of  prejudice  and  ignorance 
to  escape  their  import  by  saying  that  they  cannot 
or  do  not  mean  what  they  seem  to  mean. 

Now  be  it  well  observed,  that  everything  our 
Lord  did,  and  every  syllable  He  uttered,  is  strictly 
in  accord  with  the  Catholic  theory  of  the  Church, 
as  we  have  stated  it.  In  the  persons  of  these 
twelve  Apostles,  we  have  the  ministerial  nucleus 
of  the  Church  chosen  by  Christ,  commissioned  by 
Christ,  with  the  promise  of  Christ's  continual 
presence,  to  do  Christ's  work,  in  Christ's  Name, 
until  Christ  shall  come  unto  the  end  of  the  world ; 
and  this  is  Christ's  Church  ("My  Church"),  for 
Christ  "builds  it,"  men  do  not  build  it. 

This  is  Catholicity  pure  and  simple;  and  the 
central  fact  of  it  is  the  gift  of  authority  to  an 
order  of  men  in  a  divinely  created  Church,  to 
claim  the  allegiance  of  men  unto  the  uttermost 
parts  of  the  earth,  in  Christ's  Name. 

Surely  it  must  be  obvious,  that  the  Protestant 
theory  of  the  Church  is  hopelessly  inconsistent 
with  our  Lord's  own  acts  and  words.  For  it 
assumes  that  a  hundred  man-made  sects  can  dis- 
place the  Christ-made  Church  fifteen  hundred 
years  after  Christ  ascended;  and  so  our  Lord's 
work  has  failed,  the  gates  of  hell  have  prevailed 
against  His  Church,  and  His  awful  ministerial 
commission  has  been  annulled,  and  His  breath 
wasted.     Think  of  it!     His  sacramental  breath 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  87 

("He  breathed  on  them")  wasted!  That  breath 
which  coifld  confer  the  Holy  Ghost,  who  was  to 
guide  the  Church  into  all  truth,  instead  of  allow- 
ing it  to  become  apostate,  and  lapse  into  fatal 
error,  as  Protestants  assert  it  did ! 

Viewed  from  the  standpoint  of  our  Lord's 
words  and  acts,  as  recorded  in  Holy  Scripture,  the 
Catholic  theory  is  true,  and  the  Protestant  theory 
is  false;  and  no  amount  of  ex  post  facto  special 
pleading  can  make  them  otherwise. 

It  now  remains  for  us  to  study  the  words  and 
acts  of  the  Holy  Apostles,  in  completing  our 
Lord's  work  of  organizing  the  Church,  and  see  if 
they,  too,  correspond  to  the  Catholic  theory  of  the 
origin  and  organization  of  the  Church. 


CHAPTER  VI 


THE  apostles'  WORK  IN  FOUNDING  THE  CHURCH 


771  E  HAVE  so  far  considered  what  our  Lord 
W  Himself  did,  by  act  and  word,  in  establish- 
ing the  ministerial  nucleus  of  the  Catholic  Church. 
Now  we  must  find  out  exactly  what  the  Apostles 
did,  in  perfecting  this  work;  remembering  that 
they  were  working  under  our  Lord's  instructions 
given  during  the  great  forty  days,  and  also  that 
they  were  guided  in  what  they  did  by  the  Holy 
Ghost,  as  our  Lord  promised  they  should  be. 

The  first  thing  they  did  after  our  Lord's 
Ascension,  was  to  elect  another  Apostle  in  the 
place  of  Judas,  "to  take  the  place  in  this  ministry, 
and  apostleship  from  which  Judas  fell  away" 
(Acts  i.  25). 

They  tarried  in  Jerusalem  eleven  days  for  the 
promised  gifts  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  As  in  the 
original  creation  "God  formed  man  of  the  dust  of 
the  ground,  and  breathed  into  his  nostrils  the 
breath  of  life,  and  man  became  a  living  soul,"  so 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  89 

Christ  formed  the  Body  of  the  Church  of  ordinary 
men ;  and  on  Pentecost  the  Holy  Ghost  breathed 
into  this  Body  the  breath  of  life,  and  the  Church 
became  filled  with  divine  vitality,  the  life  of  the 
Son  of  God. 

He  thus  re-incarnates  Himself  through  the 
work  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  in  the  Church  which  is 
called  His  Body;  and  so  this  pentecostal  baptism 
forever  stamps  the  Church  with  the  attribute  of 
sanctity,  and  emphasizes  its  divine  origin,  and 
differentiates  it  eternally  from  all  man-made  sects. 
Pentecost  is  the  Church's  birthday. 

The  Church  begins  its  work  at  once.  St.  Peter 
preaches  the  first  sermon,  and  when  men  ask  him 
what  to  do,  he  replies,  "Repent  ye,  and  be  bap- 
tized every  one  of  you  in  the  Name  of  Jesus  Christ 
unto  the  remission  of  sins,  and  ye  shall  receive 
the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost"  (Acts  ii.  38).  Here 
then,  the  very  first  Christian  sermon  ever  preached 
in  the  Church,  calls  men  not  merely  to  repent,  but 
to  be  baptized;  not  only  to  be  baptized,  but  to  be 
baptized  unto  the  kemission  of  sins,  that  they 
might  receive  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  Notice 
how  the  sacramental  doctrine  comes  to  the  front 
at  once. 

If  Baptism  had  been  a  mere  form,  such  teach- 
ing as  this  from  one  who  had  so  recently  been 
under  our  Lord's  personal  instruction,  would  have 
been  profane  in  the  extreme,  for  what  sane  man 
would  have  dared  to  associate  remission  of  sins, 
and  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  with  the  recep- 


90  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

tion  of  a  mere  ordinance,  unless  the  Lord  Himself 
had  so  instructed  him  ?  In  modern  Protestant 
revival  preaching,  did  you  ever  hear  the  preacher 
urge  his  converts  to  be  baptized  for  the  remission 
of  sins? 

As  a  result  of  this  first  sermon,  we  read  that 
"they  that  received  his  word  were  baptized;  and 
the  same  day  there  were  added  unto  them  in  that 
day  about  three  thousand  souls"  (Acts  ii.  41). 

To  hear  the  word  of  God  then  is  obediently 
to  receive  Baptism.  Now  the  Church  is  com- 
posed of  the  twelve  Apostles,  the  one  hundred  and 
eight  disciples,  and  the  three  thousand  other  lay- 
men, who  had  just  been  baptized.  We  read  again, 
that  these  Churchmen  continued  steadfastly  in 
four  things:  in  the  Apostles'  teaching  and  fellow- 
ship, in  the  breaking  of  bread  and  the  prayers 
(Acts  ii.  42). 

Here  we  have  four  elements  of  the  unity  of  the 
primitive  Catholic  Church.  Unity  of  doctrine, 
of  organic  fellowship  in  one  body,  sacramental 
unity,  and  the  imity  of  common  prayers,  that  is, 
unity  of  worship;  and  we  read  that  the  Lord 
added  to  them  day  by  day  those  that  were  being 
saved  (Acts  ii.  47). 

He  added  those  who  were  being  saved  (the  cor- 
rect translation)  because  the  Church  was  the 
means  of  salvation.  ISTow  this  unity  of  Apostolic 
doctrine,  fellowship  and  sacramental  worship  is 
something  positive,  tangible,  organic,  and  definite ; 
and  their  steadfast  loyalty  to  it,  is  in  marked  con- 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  9\ 

trast  with  the  modern  Protestant  idea  of  agreeing 
to  differ,  and  the  assertion  that  the  only  unity  pos- 
sible, or  necessary,  is  a  kind  of  heart  unity,  which 
nobody  can  define  or  comprehend.  Later  we  will 
take  each  one  of  these  bonds  of  unity  by  itself  and 
study  its  nature. 

ISTow  our  Lord  committed  to  the  Apostles  all 
ministerial  authority,  and  so,  having  chosen  an 
Apostle  in  the  place  of  Judas,  they  request  the  dis- 
ciples to  choose  seven  men  for  the  office  of  Deacons, 
whom  they  (the  disciples)  set  before  the  Apostles, 
"and  when  they  had  prayed,  they  (the  Apostles) 
laid  their  hands  on  them"  (Acts  vi.  6).  That  is, 
they  ordained  them.  Then  again  we  read  that  they 
appointed  them  elders  in  every  Church  (xiv.  23), 
and  so  we  now  have  a  ministry  of  three  orders: 
Apostles,  Elders,  and  Deacons,  who  went  about 
from  city  to  city  preaching  the  Gospel  of  the 
Kingdom,  and  converting  men,  and  bringing  them 
into  the  Church,  through  Baptism. 

Let  us  take  an  example  of  their  work.  Philip, 
the  Deacon,  meets  an  Ethiopian  eunuch,  riding  in 
his  chariot,  and  reading  the  prophecy  of  Isaiah. 
Philip  joins  the  Ethiopian,  and  asks  him  if  he  un- 
derstood the  scriptures  he  is  reading.  The  Ethiop- 
ian replies,  "How  can  I  except  some  man  shall 
guide  me?"  You  notice  that  the  Ethiopian  did 
not  seem  to  hold  the  Protestant  theory,  that  every 
man  can  interpret  the  Bible  for  himself;  on  the 
contrary,  he  feels  the  need  of  a  guide  of  some 
sort,  and  so  Philip,  representing  the  Church  in- 


92  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

structs  him.  Philip,  as  we  read,  preached  unto 
him  Jesus.  Then,  as  they  rode  along,  they  came 
to  a  certain  water;  and  the  Ethiopian  instantly 
said,  "Behold,  here  is  water ;  what  doth  hinder  me 
to  be  baptized?"  Now  obviously  enough,  preach- 
ing Jesus  according  to  the  Apostolic  method  in- 
volved preaching  Baptism  as  the  way  to  Jesus,  the 
way  to  receive  His  grace,  otherwise,  the  Ethiopian 
would  not  have  immediately  desired  Baptism, 
when  Philip  "preached  Jesus." 

So  "he  commanded  the  chariot  to  stand  still ; 
and  they  both  went  do^vn  into  the  water,  both 
Philip  and  the  eunuch ;  and  he  baptized  him." 

Now  the  Apostles  not  only  baptized  men  and 
women,  but  they  also  confirmed  them.  For  ex- 
ample, St.  Paul  finds  certain  disciples  and  asks 
them,  "Did  ye  receive  the  Holy  Ghost  when  ye  be- 
lieved?" Obviously,  then,  faith  does  not  confer 
all  gifts  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  there  must  be  sac- 
ramental ways  of  receiving  Him,  after  one  is  con- 
verted and  believes.  St.  Paul  finds  that  they  had 
only  received  John's  baptism,  which  was  not  Chris- 
tian Baptism  at  all.  Having  explained  this  fact  to 
them,  they  were  baptized  into  the  Name  of  the 
Lord  Jesus.  "And  when  Paul  had  laid  his  hands 
upon  them  the  Holy  Ghost  came  on  them"  (Acts 
xix.  6).  Again  we  read  an  account  of  another 
Confirmation  in  Acts  viii.  17.  "When  the  Apostles 
which  were  at  Jerusalem  heard  that  Samaria  had 
received  the  word  of  God,  they  sent  unto  them 
Peter  and  John,  who  when  they  were  come  down. 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  93 

prayed  for  them  that  they  might  receive  the  Holy 
Ghost.  (For  as  yet  He  was  fallen  upon  none  of 
them ;  only  they  had  been  baptized  into  the  Name 
of  the  Lord  Jesus.)  Then  laid  they  their  hands 
on  them,  and  they  received  the  Holy  Ghost." 

So  this  laying  on  of  hands  alvc^ays  followed 
Baptism,  and  was  the  sacramental  means  by  which 
the  Holy  Ghost  was  given  to  men.  Again,  we 
read  that  they  celebrated  the  Holy  Communion 
always  on  Sunday.  "Upon  the  first  day  of  the 
week,  when  we  were  gathered  together  to  break 
bread,  Paul  preached  unto  them"  (Acts  xx.  7). 

Notice  first,  that  the  Christian  weekly  holy  day 
is  the  first  day,  that  is,  Sunday,  in  commemoration 
of  our  Lord's  resurrection ;  and  that  the  Church  in 
setting  apart  this  day,  assumes  Divine  Authority  to 
act  in  the  matter;  otherwise  she  would  not  have 
dared  to  do  away  with  that  which  was  an  estab- 
lished ordinance  of  God. 

Notice  also,  that  while  St.  Paul  preached,  the 
purpose  of  coming  together  was  to  break  the  sacra- 
mental bread;  and  the  preaching  was  only  inci- 
dental, or  of  secondary  importance.  Preaching 
in  the  New  Testament  is  never  an  end  in  itself, 
but  the  means  to  an  end;  and  the  end  is  always, 
and  everywhere,  Church  membership  through  Bap- 
tism. Moreover  the  chief  object  of  all  Christian 
assemblage  is  always  worship,  and  never  merely 
to  hear  a  sermon. 

When  any  question  arose,  any  point  of  doc- 
trine or  discipline  needed  further  definition,  the 


94  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

matter  was  referred  to  a  council  of  the  Church, 
for  decision,  under  guidance  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
For  example,  the  question  came  up  whether  Gen- 
tile converts  should  be  circumcised  and  observe  the 
Jewish  law.  The  brethren  appealed  to  the  Apostles 
and  Elders  at  Jerusalem,  and  they  came  together  to 
consider  the  matter.  When  after  full  discussion 
the  question  was  decided  in  favor  of  the  liberty  of 
the  Gentiles,  letters  were  written  to  announce  this 
decision  to  the  Church  at  large,  and  the  formula 
used  to  express  the  decision  was,  "It  seemed  good 
to  the  Holy  Ghost  and  to  us."  That  is,  they  dis- 
tinctly claim  the  guidance  of  the  Holy  Ghost  in 
their  decision,  which  the  Lord  Himself  had  prom- 
ised them.  Then  we  read  that  Paul  and  Barnabas 
as  "they  went  through  the  cities,  they  delivered 
them  the  decrees  for  to  keep,  which  had  been  or- 
dained of  the  Apostles  and  elders  that  were  at 
Jerusalem"  (Acts  xv.,  xvi.  4).  Here  we  have  an 
example  of  the  Church  acting  as  a  whole,  through 
her  representatives  in  council  assembled ;  and  in  so 
doing,  claiming  to  be  under  direction  of  the  Holy 
Spirit. 

Here  we  have  an  organized  legislative  body  in 
authority,  acting  for  the  Church,  and  issuing  de- 
crees which  are  binding  upon  the  whole  Church. 
Could  any  proceeding  more  distinctly  illustrate, 
and  bring  out,  the  Church  principle  than  this  ? 
Could  anything  more  strongly  emphasize  the  or- 
ganized character  of  the  Church,  its  unity,  and 
its  exercise  of  authority  in  practical  matters,  than 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  95 

this?  We  fail  to  see  how  it  could;  and  yet  Prot- 
estants speak  of  the  Church  as  an  invisible  thing, 
or  as  a  collection  of  disconnected  sects.  Pray, 
how  could  either  of  these  deal  with  such  a  question 
as  this  council  of  Jerusalem  settled?  How  can 
they  settle  anything,  when  they  recognize  no  su- 
preme legislative  authority  anywhere? 

'Now  the  last  thing  that  the  Book  of  the  Acts 
of  the  Holy  Apostles  tells  us,  is  this:  Paul 
preached  the  Kingdom  of  God,  and  taught  the 
things  concerning  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  (Acts 
xxviii.  31). 

So  from  first  to  last,  the  preaching  is  always 
about  the  Lord,  and  His  Church.  The  two  things 
are  never  separated.  The  world  had  to  wait  fif- 
teen hundred  years  before  men  discovered  that  that 
personal  loyalty  to  Christ,  and  to  Christ's  Church, 
could  be  divorced:  that  one  was  essential,  while 
the  other  was  not ;  that  one  must  believe  something 
about  God's  Son,  while  God's  Kingdom  was  a 
matter  of  indifference.  According  to  St.  Paul, 
to  preach  those  things  which  concern  the  Lord,  is 
to  preach  the  Kingdom,  the  Catholic  Church,  as 
the  way  to  Him.  That  kind  of  preaching  which 
aims  merely  to  rouse  men  and  convict  them  of  sin 
and  stir  faith  in  their  hearts,  and  stops  with  this, 
is  certainly  not  Apostolic  preaching,  whatever  else 
it  may  be.  The  first  principles  of  the  doctrine  of 
Christ  do  not  stop  with  faith  and  repentance,  but 
go  straight  on  to  Baptism  and  laying  on  of  hands 
(Heb.  vi.  1). 


%  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

Now  let  us  go  back  and  sum  up  what  the  Apos- 
tles did  in  obedience  to  our  Lord,  and  under  the 
guidance  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  in  completing  and  ex- 
tending the  organization,  of  the  Catholic  Church. 

First,  they  chose  an  Apostle  in  the  place  of 
Judas.  Second,  they  preached  Baptism  for  the  re- 
mission of  sins,  and  three  thousand  men  were  ad- 
ded to  the  Church.  Third,  they  held  their  dis- 
ciples steadfastly  to  the  Apostles'  doctrine,  min- 
istry, sacraments,  and  worship,  as  four  bonds  of 
Catholic  unity.  Fourth,  they  ordain  seven  Dea- 
cons. Fifth,  they  ordain  elders  in  every  Church, 
and  thus  completely  develop  the  Apostolic  minis- 
try. Sixth,  they  baptize  both  men  and  women. 
Seventh,  they  confirm  them,  that  they  may  receive 
the  Holy  Ghost.  Eighth,  they  institute  the  weekly 
memorial  of  the  Resurrection,  and  celebrate  the 
Holy  Eucharist  every  Lord's  day.  Ninth,  they 
settle  matters  in  dispute  by  an  appeal  to  a  council 
of  the  whole  Church,  which  claims  the  guidance  of 
the  Holy  Ghost  in  reaching  its  decision ;  which  de- 
cision is  announced  as  of  binding  authority  on 
Christians.  Tenth,  always  and  everywhere,  the 
Kingdom  of  Christ  is  preached  when  Christ  is 
preached,  and  the  two  things  are  never  separated. 

Now  in  all  this,  we  find  the  Church  organized 
and  at  work,  under  the  Spirit's  guidance,  preach- 
ing, teaching,  baptizing,  confirming,  celebrating 
the  Holy  Eucharist,  exercising  discipline,  and  leg- 
islating, held  together  by  four  bonds  of  Catholic 
Unity,  one  and  the  same,  wherever  it  exists  at 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  97 

all.  This  much  at  least  has  been  proved,  by  what 
we  have  read  in  the  Book  of  the  Acts.  And  all  this 
is  the  natural  and  necessary  sequence  of  what  our 
Lord  Himself  did  and  said,  when  He  selected, 
ordained,  and  commissioned  the  Apostolic  order, 
to  teach,  baptize,  absolve,  celebrate  the  Holy  Com- 
munion, and  exercise  discipline,  in  His  Name,  and 
by  His  authority,  unto  the  end  of  the  world  in  time, 
and  unto  the  uttermost  parts  of  the  earth,  in  space. 
Now,  in  view  of  all  this,  what  do  you  think  of  those 
who  assert  that  Christ  founded  no  Church,  and 
taught  merely  a  spiritual  religion;  and  that  none 
of  these  things  make  any  difference  if  the  heart  is 
all  right?  Such  an  assertion  is  so  radically  con- 
trary to  the  facts  of  the  case,  that  the  only  thing 
one  can  say  charitably  is  that  those  who  make  it 
are  so  blinded  by  prepossession  that  they  do  not  or 
cannot  take  in,  the  simple  statements  we  have  been 
studying  together. 

They  must  know  that  the  Book  of  the  Acts  is  a 
book  of  Church  History.  They  have  their  open 
Bibles  before  them,  they  occasionally  read  what  we 
have  read,  and  the  only  possible  explanation  for 
their  failure  to  grasp  the  plain  significance  of 
Bible  facts,  is  that  they  are  handicapped  by  a  habit 
of  thought,  and  by  a  theory,  which  must  be  de- 
fended at  any  cost ;  a  theory  by  which  alone  their 
position  can  be  justified.  We  do  not  necessarily 
question  the  sincerity  of  such  people.  They  have 
been  taught,  and  have  always  believed,  that  the 
New  Testament  recognizes  no  Church ;  and  so  they 


98  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

fail  to  take  in  the  plain,  direct  statements  of  his- 
toric facts.  The  power  of  old  habits  of  thought  is 
too  strong  for  them,  and  it  takes  more  effort,  and 
more  concentration  of  thought,  and  more  independ- 
ent thinking,  to  weigh  a  series  of  facts  at  their  par 
value,  than  most  of  them  are  capable  of,  at  first. 

]!^ow  we  have  found  that  the  Church  and  the 
!Rew  Testament  stand  on  precisely  the  same  basis, 
come  from  the  same  source;  for  the  Church  was 
founded,  and  the  ISTew  Testament  was  written,  un- 
der the  direction  of  the  Lord  Himself,  by  the  guid- 
ance of  the  Holy  Spirit  which  He  had  Himself 
promised.    Here  then  is  a  very  pertinent  question. 

No  Protestant  among  the  evangelical  denom- 
inations would  think  of  making  a  new  Bible. 
Why  should  he  think  of  making  a  new  Church  f 
If  it  is  irreverent,  or  profane,  to  substitute  a  new 
Gospel  for  the  old  Bible,  why  is  it  not  equally 
irreverent,  or  profane,  to  substitute  a  new  sect 
for  the  old  Church  ?  To  accept  the  New  Testa- 
ment and  reject  the  Church,  is  simply  a  piece  of 
inconsistent  individualism  which  considerably 
weakens  our  ground  on  which  we  defend  the  Bible 
itself.  For,  if  you  can  reject  the  Church  of  God 
which  He  creates,  why  not  reject  the  Word  of 
God,  which  He  inspires  ?  In  either  case,  you 
reject  that  which  is  of  divine  origin  and  authority. 

Now  we  affirm  that  the  Apostles'  work  in 
completing  the  organization  of  the  Church  under 
Christ's  directions,  and  the  guidance  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  is  perfectly  in  accord  with  the  Catholic 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  99 

theory  of  the  Church.  The  baptismal  gift  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  at  Pentecost,  emphasizes  the  divine 
origin  and  life  of  the  Church,  and  is  the  visible 
pledge  of  its  supernatural  character. 

Preaching  Baptism  for  the  remission  of  sins, 
and  Confirmation  that  men  may  receive  the  Holy 
Ghost,  is  Catholic  doctrine,  pure  and  simple. 
Transmitting  Apostolic  authority  by  laying  on  of 
hands,  involves  the  doctrine  of  Apostolic  Succes- 
sion. The  Apostles'  doctrine,  fellowship,  break- 
ing of  Bread,  and  the  prayers,  have  always  been 
four  visible  bonds  of  Catholic  unity,  throughout 
the  Church. 

The  council  of  Jerusalem  distinctly  illustrates 
certain  great  Catholic  principles :  the  organic  unity 
of  the  Church,  which  can  act  through  a  general 
council ;  the  necessity  of  some  authoritative  court 
of  appeal  in  defining  the  faith;  the  fact  of  the 
guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  when  the  Church 
thus  acts  as  a  whole;  and  the  authority  of  the 
Church  to  make  her  decrees  binding  on  the  con- 
sciences of  Christians.  These  are  all  of  them  Cath- 
olic principles,  and  it  goes  without  saying,  that  a 
Protestantism  divided  against  itself  does  not  and 
cannot  maintain  these  principles. 

Having  now  found  what  our  Lord  did  in  estab- 
lishing the  Church,  as  recorded  in  the  Gospels,  and 
having  seen  what  the  Apostles  did  in  completing 
the  organization  of  the  Church,  as  recorded  in  the 
Book  of  the  Acts  of  the  Holy  Apostles,  it  remains 
for  us  to  turn  to  the  Epistles,  that  is,  the  ofiicial 


100  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

correspondence  of  the  Church's  officers,  and  find 
out  what  they  said  of  the  Church,  in  their  letters 
to  different  persons  under  their  Apostolic  care. 

So  far,  we  have  been  studying  the  simple  his- 
toric facts  which  concern  the  origin  and  organiza- 
tion of  the  Church.  Now  we  are  to  consider  cer- 
tain great  Church  principles  on  which  these  facts 
depend,  and  which  thej  illustrate.  We  must 
learn  what  we  can  of  the  philosophy  of  the  Church 
system,  as  given  in  the  Bible,  and  determine  the 
methods  by  which  she  accomplishes  certain  results. 
Christ  the  Lord  created  her.  What  then  is  her 
vital  relation  to  Him?  How  does  she  teach  His 
truth,  and  administer  His  grace,  and  bring  men 
into  union  with  Him  ?  The  answer  to  these  ques- 
tions brings  out  certain  very  wonderful  principles 
of  the  Kingdom,  which  we  must  study  carefully 
and  reverently,  and  tiy  to  understand  as  best  we 
may,  by  the  help  of  the  Holy  Spirit  and  the  testi- 
mony of  the  Apostles. 


CHAPTER  VII 

THE   CATHOLIC    CHURCH  AND   THE   INCARNATION 

771  E  MUST  bear  in  mind  that  the  Epistles  of 
W  the  'New  Testament  are  simply  letters  from 
the  Apostolic  officers  of  the  Church,  to  their  sub- 
ordinates. 

In  any  scriptural  study  of  the  Church,  the 
Epistles  are  valuable,  not  so  much  because  they 
give  detailed  historic  facts,  but  because  they  set 
forth  incidentally  certain  great  Church  principles 
involved  in  the  organization  of  the  Church ;  and 
suggest  the  methods  by  which  the  Church  fulfils 
her  mission  of  conveying  grace  and  truth  to  men, 
from  the  Lord  Christ. 

In  the  Epistles  the  Church  is  called  by  various 
names  which  suggest  its  nature.  It  is  said  to  be 
the  Temple  of  God,  the  Bride  of  Christ,  the 
Household  of  God,  the  Ark,  the  Kingdom  of 
Heaven,  the  Pillar  and  Ground  of  the  Truth ;  and 
all  these  figures  suggest  an  organized  society 
in  which  God  dwells.    But  there  is  one  figure  em- 


102  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

ployed  to  represent  the  Church,  which  occurs  some 
thirty-three  times  in  St.  Paul's  Epistles ;  and  whicli 
more  than  all  others  suggests  the  relation  of  the 
Church  to  Christ  and  the  principles  of  its  struc- 
ture and  mission. 

The  Church  is  called  the  Body  of  Christ. 

It  will  pay  us  well  to  take  this  figure  and  study 
it  carefully,  trying  to  comprehend  its  full  mean- 
ing, and  yet  being  careful  not  to  push  it  too  far  and 
make  it  mean  what  it  never  was  intended  to  teach. 
Now,  to  begin  with,  the  expression,  the  Body  of 
Christ,  suggests  at  once  a  great  fact  or  doctrine, 
namely,  that  of  the  Incarnation;  that  the  second 
Person  of  the  adorable  Trinity  was  made  man; 
and  the  failure  to  realize  the  vital  relation  between 
Christ  and  His  Church  is  often  due,  either  to  a 
latent  or  open  disbelief  in  the  Deity  of  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  or  to  a  failure  to  appreciate  what  is 
necessarily  involved  in  the  fact  of  the  Incarnation 
itself,  if  we  once  admit  it  to  be  a  fact.  This  is 
not  the  place  for  proving  the  Deity  of  the  Lord; 
for  if  He  is  not  very  God  of  very  God,  then  all 
argument  about  Church  matters  is  the  most  arrant 
nonsense.  But  this  is  the  place  for  pointing  out 
to  some  who  claim  to  accept  the  truth  of  our 
Lord's  Deity,  what  is  involved  in  their  confession ; 
and  to  insist,  that  if  you  accept  the  doctrine  of  the 
Incarnation,  that  the  Lord  Christ  is  perfectly 
God  and  perfectly  man  in  one  adorable  Person, 
then  it  is  mere  childishness  to  halt  and  stumble 
at  the  supernatural  character  of  the  Church,  which 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  103 

the  Lord  creates.  If  He  makes  it,  and  m  any  way- 
chooses  to  associate  His  own  Person  with  the 
Church,  and  utters  very  wonderful  and  mysterious 
things  concerning  it,  then  the  attempt  to  rid  the 
Church  of  its  supernatural  character  recoils 
against  Him,  and  is  a  species  of  rationalism.  This 
may  sound  harsh,  but  it  is  the  truth,  just  the  same. 

Let  us  try  to  get  some  idea  of  what  is  the  re- 
lation of  the  Incarnation  to  the  Catholic  Church. 
If  Christ  were  merely  a  man,  or  came  merely  to 
teach  men,  then  we  could  consider  Him  and  His 
teaching,  quite  apart  from  the  Church;  just  as  any 
great  philosopher  can  be  considered  apart  from 
the  school  which  he  founds,  or  the  doctrines  he 
enunciates.  The  personality  of  Plato  or  of  Socrates 
is  not  in  the  least  necessary  to  the  Platonic  or  Soc- 
ratic  system  of  teaching.  One  can  accept  what 
they  taught,  without  thinking  about  them  as  indi- 
viduals at  all ;  and  without  belonging  to  any  organ- 
ization or  society  of  men;  or  without  coming  into 
any  personal  relationship  with  the  founders  of  such 
societies. 

But  the  central  and  vital  fact  of  Christianity  is 
not  any  mere  doctrine,  however  true,  but  it  is  the 
essential  nature  of  the  Lord  Himself;  and  the 
fact  that  He  saves  us  through  union  with  His 
Person.  He  is  at  once  perfectly  God,  and  per- 
fectly man.  In  His  own  Person,  He  reunites  the 
two  natures  that  had  been  separated  by  sin,  the 
divine  and  the  human,  and  in  so  doing,  sanctifies 
His  own  human  nature ;  and  He  saves  us,  by  unit- 


104  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

ing  our  sin-stained  nature  with  His  perfected 
human  nature,  part  for  part.  His  Body  is  to  us 
the  channel  through  which  His  divine  life  flows 
in  to  us ;  it  is  the  bond  of  union  with  God  we  have 
in  common  with  Him.  He  deals  with  us,  and  has 
relations  with  us,  not  directly  as  God  alone,  but 
always  as  the  Son  of  Man;  and  always  through 
His  Manhood  as  the  channel  of  communication  be- 
tween us  and  God.  This,  mark  you,  is  far  more 
than  being  saved  by  faith  alone.  It  is  coming  into 
vital  touch  with  His  Manhood;  and  it  is  being 
healed  and  restored  by  that  touch,  even  as  the 
woman  was  restored,  who  put  out  her  hand  and 
touched  His  garment. 

Notice,  too,  that  the  Incarnation  establishes 
the  sacramental  principle,  which  is,  that  the  life 
of  God  does  not  flow  down  to  us  directly,  by  an  act 
of  faith  merely,  but  it  comes  to  us  indirectly  as  it 
were,  through  the  human  body  of  Christ ;  so  that 
His  human  nature  is  the  outward  and  visible 
sign  of  the  presence  of  the  inward  and  spiritual 
life  of  God  among  men.  At  the  Incarnation,  the 
Son  of  God  comes  visibly  and  audibly  in  touch 
with  men ;  teaches  them,  heals  them,  absolves  them, 
by  words  and  acts  and  symbols ;  and  all  power  and 
grace  proceed  from  His  Incarnate  Person  which 
men  can  see  and  handle.  Hence  Christianity 
must  be  a  sacramental  religion,  and  its  Church,  if 
it  has  any,  a  sacramental  Church,  because  Christ 
will  never  cease  to  be  man,  and  will  never  cease  to 
save  men  through  His  manhood,  as  the  bond  of 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  105 

union  with  His  deity.  His  person  must  be  the 
type  of  His  system.  Being  a  Christian  is  not 
merely  believing  in  Christ,  but  it  is  also  being 
brought  somehow  sacramentally  into  touch  with 
His  sanctified  manhood,  through  outward  signs  of 
spiritual  grace. 

It  must  constantly  be  remembered  that  Christ- 
ianity is  not  purely  a  spiritual  religion,  and  never 
can  be,  as  long  as  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  is  also 
man. 

'Now  we  come  to  the  vital  question:  The  Lord 
came  to  men  and  lived  with  them,  taught  them,  ab- 
solved them,  comforted  them,  gave  them  grace,  and 
then  ascended  into  Heaven,  some  nineteen  cen- 
turies ago ;  and  all  this  took  place  on  the  other  side 
of  the  world  from  us.  Is  there  then  anything  to 
span  this  double  gulf  between  us  and  Him,  this 
gulf  of  time,  and  space;  nineteen  centuries,  and 
thousands  of  miles  ?  Did  the  Lord  provide  any 
means  by  which  His  mediatorial  work  was  to  be 
carried  on  in  the  world,  after  He  left  us,  by  which 
His  truth  was  to  be  taught,  and  His  pardon  as- 
sured, and  His  grace  given;  some  way  which  we 
could  understand,  some  means  which  would  give  us 
certainty  about  these  things  which  concern  our  sal- 
vation, some  way  through  which  He  could  still  act 
among  and  upon  men,  though  the  sight  of  His  face 
and  the  touch  of  His  hands  had  been  withdrawn? 
We  think  that  He  must  have  made  some  such  pro- 
vision, because,  if  it  was  once  necessary  for  the 
Lord  to  become  man,  to  come  to  our  realm  of  life 


106  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

in  order  to  speak  to  men,  touch,  and  heal  them,  and 
absolve  them,  then  much  the  same  necessity  exists 
now.  We  are  still  human.  God  is  still  infinite. 
The  finite  cannot  comprehend  the  infinite.  There 
is  still  the  same  necessity  that  God  shall  ac- 
commodate Himself  to  our  limited  perceptions,  if 
He  is  going  to  communicate  with  us;  that  Christ 
shall  speak  to  us,  and  heal  us,  and  absolve  us,  if  not 
by  His  words  which  we  can  hear,  and  His  touch 
which  we  can  feel,  then  at  least  by  some  sign  which 
we  can  see,  some  sacrament  we  can  touch,  some 
authoritative  word  we  can  hear,  without  making 
any  mistake  about  it. 

Moreover,  He  is  to-day  the  same  Christ  dwell- 
ing in  our  manhood,  and  dealing  with  us  through 
it  sacramentally.  Certainly  before  He  ascended 
He  promised  to  return  in  some  way.  "I  will  come 
to  you."  "Lo,  I  am  with  you  always  (every  day) 
unto  the  end  of  the  world."  If  Christ  returns  it 
must  be  as  the  Incarnate  Christ;  and  it  is  per- 
fectly natural,  we  think,  to  expect  some  visible 
organic  manifestation  of  His  presence  among  men. 

!Now  this  presumption  that  Christ  will  come 
and  in  some  way  manifest  His  presence  among 
men,  finds  a  most  remarkable  and  striking  con- 
firmation, when  we  find  St.  Paul  calling  the 
Church  the  Body  of  Christ ;  as  if  the  Church  were 
the  living  organic  presence  of  Christ  Himself,  His 
visible  Body,  in  which  He  dwells,  and  through 
which  He  brings  Himself  again  in  touch  with  men, 
just  as  the  body  of  a  man  is  the  instrument  of  his 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  107 

soul's  working.  What  a  marvellous  and  far-reach- 
ing thought  it  at  once  suggests,  namely,  that  Christ 
wills  to  re-manifest  His  Incarnation,  no  longer 
visibly,  but  mystically  and  sacramentally,  no  longer 
under  the  limits  of  an  ordinary  human  body  in 
one  point  of  space,  but  universally  throughout  the 
world,  and  in  every  age,  through  one  splendid  or- 
ganism which  He  creates,  and  in  which  He  dwells, 
and  through  which  He  gathers  men  into  union 
with  Himself.  St.  Paul  seems  to  assert  this  in 
most  unmistakable  and  explicit  language  when  he 
says,  "The  Church  which  is  His  Body,  the  Fulness 
of  Him  that  filleth  all  in  all"  (Eph.  i.  23). 

The  union  of  Christ  with  His  Church  is  a 
tremendous  thought;  but  after  all,  it  is  no  more 
wonderful  than  the  thought  of  the  Incarnation 
itself,  in  which  the  eternal  Son  of  God  "for  us  men, 
and  for  our  salvation,  came  down  from  Heaven, 
and  was  Incarnate  by  the  Holy  Ghost  of  the  Vir- 
gin Mary,  and  was  made  man." 

The  same  line  of  thought  which  would  lead  us 
to  expect  an  Incarnation,  would,  as  we  think,  also 
lead  us  to  expect  that  the  Incarnation  or  sacra- 
mental principle  would  become  permanent.  This 
will  appear  as  we  proceed  in  the  argument. 

]^o  doubt  much  of  what  has  just  been  said,  has 
a  theological  or  mystical  sound,  and  is  difficult  to 
comprehend;  but  we  cannot  deal  with  the  deep 
things  of  God  at  all,  without  touching  the  most 
awful  mysteries  of  His  being;  and  if  the  nature 
and  function  of  the  Catholic  Church  did  not  in- 


108  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

volve  mystery,  it  could  not  possibly  be  the  Body 
of  Christ,  nor  could  it  be  divine  as  we  claim  it  is. 
Every  anatomist  and  physiologist  has  to  acknowl- 
edge that  a  living  human  body  is  full  of  mysteries, 
which  the  most  advanced  science  has  done  little 
or  nothing  to  explain.  If,  then,  the  Church  is 
Christ's  Body,  if  it  is  the  instrument  of  Christ's 
working,  as  a  man  acts  through  his  body,  then  to 
the  natural  mysteries  of  human  life,  you  have  ad- 
ded the  supernatural  mysteries  of  Christ's  divine 
life  in  the  Church ;  and  our  business  is  not  to  at- 
tempt to  explain  away  such  mysteries,  but  to  try 
as  best  as  we  can,  to  find  out  what  they  mean,  so 
far  as  God  reveals  them  to  us. 

We  have  already  found  that  our  Lord  selected 
and  commissioned  a  ministry  to  teach,  and  admin- 
ister sacraments  and  discipline,  in  His  Name ;  and 
that  the  Apostles  imder  His  direction  and  the 
guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  completed  the  organi- 
zation of  the  Church,  as  recorded  in  the  Book  of 
the  Acts  of  the  Holy  Apostles.  It  is  this  Church, 
thus  organized,  which  St.  Paul  calls  the  Body  of 
Christ ;  and  so  in  studying  this  expression,  we  will 
learn  more  of  the  nature  of  the  Apostolic  Church. 

What,  then,  does  this  expression  mean?  In 
what  sense  is  the  Church  the  Body  of  Christ  ? 

Now  the  word  hody,  may  be  used  in  one  of  two 
senses:  to  denote  an  organization,  or  an  organism. 
These  are  two  quite  different  things.  An  organi- 
zation of  men  is  merely  a  collection  of  men  united 
for  a  purpose,  under  some  rules  and  regulations. 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  109 

A  club,  a  society,  a  guild,  a  fraternity,  or  a  sect, 
is  an  organization.  Each  member  has  his  own  indi- 
vidual life,  but  there  is  no  vital  union  between 
them,  which  proceeds  from  the  club  itself.  The 
bond  of  union  between  different  members  is  not 
life,  but  a  community  of  ideas,  purposes,  sym- 
pathies, and  methods  of  work.  A  fire  company,  a 
lodge  of  Masons,  the  Young  Men's  Christian  Asso- 
ciation, are  each  an  organization. 

But  an  organism  is  a  body  inhabited  by  life, 
which  permeates  it  and  operates  through  certain 
organs  in  the  body.  An  animal,  or  a  man,  is  an 
organism ;  Christ's  human  body  was  an  organism ; 
and  the  Church  as  an  organism  differs  from  all 
human  organizations,  in  that  in  her  the  Life  of 
Christ  and  the  Holy  Spirit  given  at  Pentecost, 
dwells  sacramentally ;  and  binds  the  Church  into 
one  living  whole,  animates  it,  nourishes  it,  and 
sustains  it,  so  that  the  Church  lives  and  grows, 
when  this  inward  life  vitalizes,  and  assimilates 
new  matter,  as  men  are  baptized  into  Christ,  and 
so  put  on  Christ.  In  this  sense  the  Church  is  an 
organism,  a  body,  the  Body  of  Christ,  and  there- 
fore it  must  live  and  grow,  subject  to  the  laws 
which  govern  the  life  and  growth  of  organisms; 
and  as  we  go  on  in  studying  the  Church,  we  shall 
find  abundant  proof  of  this  fact. 

Every  living  body  has  certain  characteristics 
by  which  we  recognize  it  as  such.  For  example, 
it  is  visible.  We  speak  of  invisible  spirits,  never 
of  invisible  bodies.     Then  it  is  one.     If  you  cut 


no  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

up  a  living  body  you  kill  it.  Each  part  must  be 
in  vital  union  with  the  heart,  brain,  and  nervous 
system.  It  must  also  have  life.  A  dead  body 
is  not  an  organism,  it  is  a  corpse;  and  will  soon 
disintegrate.  Again  it  must  have  organs  through 
which  the  life  sustains  itself;  a  man  without 
heart,  lungs,  or  stomach,  is  unimaginable.  And 
lastly  a  living  body  must  grow.  If  the  Church  is 
Christ's  living  Body,  the  Fulness  of  Christ,  then 
it  must  certainly  have  these  necessary  characteris- 
tics of  a  living  body  that  we  have  named.  It  is 
visible.  It  is  one.  It  has  life.  It  has  organs 
through  which  that  life  operates,  and  it  grows. 
Let  us  take  these  characteristics  in  their  order. 

First,  then,  the  Church  is  visible.  It  is  a  curi- 
ous fact  that  we  have  to  insist  on  this,  but  it  is 
necessary  because  some  good  Protestants,  in  order 
to  avoid  the  logic  of  facts,  have  invented  the  theory 
that  the  true  Church  is  an  invisible  body  of  the 
truly  sanctified,  which  is  known  only  to  God ;  and 
which  is  therefore  invisible  and  independent  of 
any  outward  form. 

The  very  obvious  reply  to  this  theory,  is  the 
fact  that  when  St.  Paul  calls  the  Church  the  Body 
of  Christ,  in  every  case  he  uses  a  Greek  word, 
which  always  refers  to  the  physical  organization 
of  a  living  organism,  as  distinguished  from  the 
spirit  of  life  which  inhabits  it.  St.  Paul  himself 
carefully  makes  the  same  distinction.  "There  is 
one  Body,  and  one  Spirit"  (Eph.  iv.  4).    "By  one 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  111 

Spirit  are  we  baptized  into  one  Body"  (I.  Cor. 
xii.  13). 

Now,  in  the  name  of  common  sense,  how  can 
the  Church  organize  itself  or  serve  any  function 
of  a  Church,  teach  men,  convert  them,  and  sup- 
port its  ministry,  without  becoming  instantly  and 
necessarily  visible  ?  So  far  as  we  are  concerned, 
an  invisible  Church  would  be  a  Chu.rch  which  has 
no  existence  anywhere.  If  the  Church  is  invis- 
ible, how  can  a  man  find  it,  join  it,  hear  it,  or  obey 
it,  or  be  sure  he  belongs  to  it  ?  Of  course  the  best 
answer  to  this,  is  to  point  out  the  fact  that  our 
Lord  and  His  Apostles  did  as  we  have  found,  actu- 
ally establish  a  visible  organism  or  society,  by 
their  own  acts  and  words,  which  has  been  the  most 
visible  institution  in  history;  and  nobody  would 
ever  have  thought  of  denying  it,  unless  the  theory 
of  an  invisible  Church  had  had  to  be  invented,  as 
an  escape  from  the  logic  of  indisputable  facts. 
If  God  saw  fit  to  become  visible,  when  He  wanted 
to  bnng  Himself  in  touch  with  men,  surely  that 
Church  through  which  He  is  to  work,  must  be 
visible. 

A  body  is  not  only  visible,  it  is  also  visibly  one. 
We  read  of  the  Church,  "There  is  one  body,  and 
one  Spirit,  even  as  ye  were  called  in  one  hope  of 
your  calling,  one  Lord,  one  faith,  one  Baptism" 
(Eph.  iv.  4).  Again,  "In  one  Spirit  were  ye  all 
baptized  into  one  body"  (I.  Cor.  xii.  13).  Again, 
"We,  who  are  many,  are  one  body  in  Christ" 
(Rom.  xii.  5).     Again,  "As  the  body  is  one  and 


1 12  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

hath  many  members,  and  all  the  members  of  the 
body,  being  many,  are  one  body,  so  also  is  Christ" 
(I.  Cor.  xii.  12).  And  again,  "God  tempered  the 
body  together  .  .  .  that  there  should  be  no  schism 
in  the  body"  (I.  Cor.  xii.  25).  That  is,  no  divi- 
sion in  it.  So  unity  is  the  second  characteristic  of 
the  body,  and  is  essential  to  it. 

Notice  carefully  what  sort  of  unity  this  is.  It 
is  organic  unity,  not  the  mechanical,  arbitrary 
unity  of  a  club  or  a  voluntary  society  bound  to- 
gether by  a  set  of  rules  and  common  sentiments ; 
but  the  unity  of  a  living,  growing  organism,  which 
is  one  from  head  to  foot ;  every  part  of  which  is  in 
vital  connection  with  and  necessary  to  every  other 
part,  just  as  joint  articulates  with  joint,  and  as 
one  arterial  system  nourishes  the  whole,  and  makes 
it  grow,  and  one  nervous  system  holds  every  part 
in  conscious  union  with  the  brain,  and  every 
muscle  responds  obedient  to  the  mind  and  will. 

St.  Paul  thus  differentiates  the  several  func- 
tions of  the  body.  He  says  "the  body  is  not  one 
member,  but  many"  (I.  Cor.  xii.  14).  "As  we 
have  many  members  in  one  body,  and  all  the  mem- 
bers have  not  the  same  office"  (Rom.  xii.  4),  that 
is,  do  not  serve  the  same  function.  "If  they  were 
all  one  member,"  he  asks,  "where  were  the  body  ? 
But  now  they  are  many  members,  but  one  body ; 
and  the  eye  cannot  say  to  the  hand,  I  have  no  need 
of  thee:  or  again  the  head  to  the  feet,  I  have  no 
need  of  you"  (I.  Cor.  xii.  19-21). 

Here  he  brings  out  the  mutual  interdependence 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  113 

of  the  organs  of  the  body.  Then  he  notes  their 
vital  union,  saying,  "Christ,  from  whom  all  the 
body  fitly  framed  and  knit  together  through  that 
which  every  joint  supplieth,  according  to  the  work- 
ing in  due  measure  of  each  several  part,  maketh 
the  increase  of  the  Body"  (Eph.  iv.  16).  Again, 
"Holding  fast  the  head,  from  whom  all  the  body 
being  supplied  and  knit  together  through  the  joints 
and  bands,  increaseth  with  the  increase  of  God" 
(Col.  ii.  19). 

Here  certainly  is  a  description  of  organic 
growth  depending  on  organic  unity;  and  it  is  im- 
possible to  imagine  how  any  language  could  more 
strongly  express  the  vital  importance  of  the  unity 
of  the  Church,  than  this.  St.  Paul  proceeds  to 
enforce  the  necessity  of  this  unity  later  on,  in  lan- 
guage that  is  startling  in  its  vigorousness.  He 
says,  "I  beseech  you,  brethren,  mark  them  which 
are  causing  the  divisions  and  occasions  of  stumb- 
ling contrary  to  the  doctrine  which  ye  learned  and 
turn  away  from  them.  For  they  that  are  such 
serve  not  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ"  (Rom.  xvi.  17). 
"I  hear  that  divisions  exist  among  you,  and  I  partly 
believe  it.  For  there  must  be  also  heresies  among 
you  that  they  which  are  approved  may  be  made 
manifest  among  you"  (I.  Cor.  xi.  18).  "For 
whereas  there  is  among  you  jealousy  and  strife, 
are  ye  not  carnal  and  walk  after  the  manner  of 
men  ?  For  while  one  saith,  I  am  of  Paul,  and  an- 
other, I  am  of  Apollos,  are  ye  not  men  ?  ...  Is 
Christ  divided?"   (I.  Cor.  iii.  3,  and  i.   12-13). 


114  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

St.  Jude  says  that  they  who  make  separations  have 
not  the  Spirit  (Jude  19).  "JSTow  I  beseech  you, 
brethren,  through  the  name  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  that  ye  all  speak  the  same  thing,  and  that 
there  be  no  divisions  among  you"  (I.  Cor.  i.  10). 
To  divide  the  Church,  then,  is  a  sin  against  its  or- 
ganic life ;  and  is  forbidden  absolutely,  by  the  voice 
of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

Now  our  Lord's  earthly  body  was  one  in  a 
double  sense :  One  from  head  to  foot  in  space,  and 
one  from  birth  to  death  in  time.  So  the  Church  is 
one  in  a  double  sense;  one  in  its  continuous  ex- 
istence from  one  age  to  another,  and  one  in  space, 
that  is,  one  throughout  the  world  at  any  one  time 
in  its  history. 

First,  the  Church  is  one  in  time ;  it  has  a  con- 
tinuous life,  and  is  the  same  body  from  first  to 
last.  Must  this  not  be  so  ?  How  does  any  living 
body  grow  ?  By  discarding  waste  material,  and  by 
receiving,  vitalizing,  and  assimilating  new  food; 
yet  all  the  while  remaining  one  and  the  same  body. 
A  man  fifty  years  old  is  the  same  person  he  was  at 
thirty,  fifteen,  or  five  years  of  age.  Thus  the 
Church  grows,  extends  itself  from  age  to  age,  is 
nourished  and  increases  as  St.  Paul  said.  Genera- 
tion after  generation  are  baptized  into  the  Church, 
live  and  die  in  it;  but  it  continues  one  and  the 
same.  Now  he  it  well  observed,  that  to  divide  one 
body  into  two  or  twenty,  is  not  growth.  To  substi- 
tute one  body  for  another  is  not  growth.  Even 
though  the  resemblance  be  perfect,  the  second  body 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  115 

is  not  the  first  body,  and  the  first  body  cannot  trans- 
fer its  identity  to  the  second  body,  any  more  than 
a  man  can  get  out  of  his  body,  and  into  the  body  of 
somebody  else.  Suppose  at  some  point  in  the  his- 
tory of  the  Church,  say  at  the  Reformation,  you 
organize  a  new  church.  The  new  would  be  new, 
the  old  would  still  remain  one,  as  it  was  before. 
There  would  be  no  vital  connection  between  them 
whatever.  The  new  would  be  no  part  of  the  old, 
could  not  share  its  life,  any  more  than  an  arm  cut 
off  from  the  body,  or  a  limb  from  a  tree,  can  live 
and  grow. 

The  fact  that  the  Church  of  Christ  is  a  living, 
growing  organism,  is  absolutely  fatal  to  the  Prot- 
estant assumption  that  the  Church  can  be  propa- 
gated by  creating  new  churches,  or  by  cutting  parts 
off  from  the  old  Church. 

This  question  of  the  unity  or  continuity  of  the 
Church,  is  of  the  greatest  importance  for  this  rea- 
son: If  the  Lord  Christ  created  His  Church,  en- 
dowed it  with  a  supernatural  life  and  grace,  gave 
it  a  revelation  of  truth  and  authority  to  represent 
Him  to  men,  then  you  cannot  be  sure  that  you  re- 
ceive the  truth  and  life  of  the  Church,  and  obey 
Christ  in  it  and  through  it,  unless  you  are  sure 
that  the  Church  to  which  you  belong  is  the  Body 
Christ  established.  Mark  you,  the  question  is  not 
one  of  resemblance,  but  of  identity.  A  modern 
sect  may  adopt  the  Church's  form  of  organization, 
her  Creed,  and  her  Ritual,  and  her  Vestments.  It 
may  teach  much  truth,  convert  men,  and  flourish 


116  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

as  an  organization,  and  do  much  good;  but  kow- 
ever  this  may  be,  it  cannot  assume  the  authority 
or  identity  of  the  old  Church,  or  claim  its  life, 
simply  and  purely  because,  as  a  matter  of  fact, 
it  is  not  the  old  Church,  has  no  organic  connec- 
tion with  it,  has  no  share  in  that  unity,  which  is 
necessarily  characteristic  of  the  original  organism. 
Again,  any  modem  Protestant  sect  may  at- 
tempt to  prove  from  Scripture,  its  similarity  of 
organization  and  belief  to  the  Apostolic  Church. 
But  similarity,  even  though  it  he  perfect,  is  not 
identity.  If  Christ  founded  a  Church,  the  ques- 
tion is  not  what  organization  is  like  that  Church, 
but  what  body  is  that  Church ;  and  if  this  Church 
exists  to-day,  it  is  the  heir  by  inheritance  of  the 
grace,  truth,  and  authority,  Christ  gave  to  the 
Church.  !Now  when  a  man  inherits  property,  the 
law  requires  that  he  prove  his  identity  as  the  heir. 
Another  man  may  look  exactly  like  him,  and  as- 
sume his  name,  and  claim  his  rights ;  but  mere  re- 
semblance is  of  no  importance  whatever  in  the  eyes 
of  the  law,  if  the  heir  establishes  his  identity.  A 
man  may  form  a  club  like  a  lodge  of  Free  Masons, 
and  adopt  their  principles,  and  use  their  insignia 
so  far  as  he  knows  them ;  but  such  a  club  is  no  part 
of  the  great  fraternity  itself,  and  would  not  be 
recognized  in  any  way  by  the  fraternity,  notwith- 
standing, the  close  resemblance,  simply  because 
Free  Masonry  as  a  corporate  institution  perpetu- 
ates its  own  existence  by  absorbing  men  into  itself, 
and  so  preserves  its  own  identity.     It  is  not  com- 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  117 

posed  of  a  lot  of  self-created,  disconnected,  spor- 
adic clubs,  patterned  after  some  vague  specifica- 
tions in  a  book  about  masonry. 

If,  then,  the  Church  extends  itself  as  an  or- 
ganism over  the  world,  by  absorbing  men  into  it- 
self, that  is,  by  continuous  growth,  it  must  be 
possible  to  test  the  claims  of  any  sect  claiming  to 
be  a  part  of  it,  by  tracing  its  history  back,  and 
finding  out  whether  it  articulates  with  the  old 
body;  has  had  any  historic,  vital  union  with  it, 
was  organized  by  it,  and  is  now  in  communion 
with  it.  In  short,  whether  it  to-day  forms  a  part 
of  it.  No  Protestant  sect  claims  to  have  existed 
before  the  Reformation.  All  do,  as  we  have  said, 
claim  to  be  purer  than  the  old  Church,  to  contain 
more  piety,  to  be  more  spiritual,  more  enlight- 
ened, and  more  free,  and  more  up-to-date,  than  the 
old  Church,  more  scriptural,  and  more  evangel- 
ical. Be  this  as  it  may,  it  is  nothing  to  the  point, 
that  they  have  no  organic  connection  with  the  old 
Church,  and  never  did  have.  Whether  or  not  this 
signifies  much,  will  appear  later;  but  as  a  simple 
matter  of  fact  it  is  unquestionably  true,  admit- 
ted to  be  true,  by  the  Protestant  churches  them- 
selves. 

For  example,  the  Baptist  Church  was  founded 
in  this  country  in  March,  1639,  by  Roger  Wil- 
liams and  others,  in  Providence,  Rhode  Island. 
The  Congregational  Church  had  no  existence  in 
this  country  as  an  organized  body  previous  to 
1620,  when  Mr.  Robinson's  disciples  arrived  in 


118  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

Plymouth,  Mass.,  representing  the  independents 
who  had  left  the  Church  of  England.  The  German 
Reformed  Church  was  founded  by  Zwinglius  in 
Zurich,  about  1530 ;  and  was  introduced  into  the 
United  States  about  ITSS.  The  Lutheran  Church 
was  established  in  Germany  by  Luther,  Melanc- 
thon,  and  others,  about  1525  ;  and  was  formally  or- 
ganized in  this  country  in  1760.  The  Methodist 
Church,  as  such,  was  formally  organized  in  this 
country  in  1784,  when  the  superintendents  sent  by 
Wesley  were  received  by  the  Methodists,  who  as 
individuals  had  separated  from  the  Church  of 
England,  and  first  emigrated  to  America  in  1766. 
The  Presbyterians  were  organized  as  a  Church  in 
America  about  1704;  and  they  were  originally 
seceders  from  the  ancient  Catholic  Church  of  Scot- 
land, when  the  Presbyterian  system  was  imported 
into  England  and  Scotland  from  Geneva,  on  the 
continent,  about  1550.  The  Reformed  Episcopal 
Church  was  organized  by  seceders  from  the  Amer- 
ican Episcopal  Church  in  the  year  1874.  The 
Unitarians  had  no  separate  existence  previous  to 
1815.  The  Universalists  were  founded  about 
1775.  The  Friends  or  Quakers  were  organized  as  a 
sect  by  George  Fox,  1647.  Besides  these,  there 
are  a  lot  of  other  sects  of  various  names  and  creeds, 
which  are  mostly  secessions  from  the  original  seced- 
ers or  Protestant  sects ;  and  as  we  have  said,  the 
point  to  be  observed  about  all  of  them  is,  that  not 
one  single  one  of  them  had  any  organized  existence 
as  a  religious  body,  before  the  Reformation.     N'ot 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  119 

one  of  them  was  founded  by  any  part  of  the  old 
Church,  or  with  its  sanction,  and  not  one  of  them 
is  in  open  communion  with  any  part  of  the  old 
Catholic  Church  to-day.  Each  one  does  claim 
that  its  own  peculiar  creed  and  form  of  organiza- 
tion are  the  primitive  forms  which  existed  in 
Apostolic  days;  but  this  is  a  far  different  thing 
from  saying  that  their  actual  organization  has  had 
a  continued,  visible  existence  from  Apostolic  days. 

Each  sect  by  its  independent  existence  violates 
the  original  law  of  unity  of  the  Catholic  Church. 
The  Anglo-Catholic  Church  of  which  the  Epis- 
copal Church  is  a  part,  claims  to  be  able  to  trace 
its  organic  life  back  to  Apostolic  foundations,  as 
one  and  the  same  organized  body,  and  so  to  be 
to-day  the  ancient  Church  of  the  land  where  it 
exists;  to  inherit  through  an  unbroken  succession 
of  ministerial  ordinations  from  our  Lord,  His 
commission  to  teach  and  minister  in  His  name. 

Having  now  considered  the  unity  of  the  Church 
in  time,  that  is,  having  found  that  the  Church  has 
a  continuous  life  from  one  age  to  another,  and  so 
is  one  by  virtue  of  this  organic  continuity  from  the 
first  century  to  the  twentieth,  we  come  to  consider 
the  unity  of  the  Church  in  space ;  that  is,  that  the 
Church  is  one  corporate  body  throughout  the  world, 
at  any  one  time  in  her  history,  from  St.  Peters- 
burg to  San  Francisco,  and  from  London  to  Je- 
rusalem. 


CHAPTER  VIII 

THE  UNITY  OF  THE  CHURCH  IN  SPACE 

CHE  second  law  of  Catholic  unity  is  this :  The 
Church  is  one  corporate  organization  through- 
out the  world  at  any  one  time  in  her  history ;  and 
in  opposition  to  this,  the  Protestant  theory  of  the 
Church  is  that  the  Church  is  the  collection  of  dif- 
ferent Christian  sects,  taken  together. 

But  surely  the  Protestant  theory  is  contrary 
to  facts ;  for  it  is  an  abuse  of  words  to  call  a  lot 
of  things  that  differ  radically,  one  and  the  same 
thing.  Does  any  sane  man  ever  assert  that  the 
Methodist  church  is  one  and  the  same  body  as  the 
Presbyterian  church,  or  that  the  two  bodies  were 
founded  by  the  same  men,  are  governed  by  the 
same  officers,  are  historically  in  any  sense  one  and 
the  same  organization?  Certainly  not.  How  is 
it  possible  that  a  hundred  and  seventy  bodies, 
separate  in  every  possible  sense,  can  be  one  body  ? 
There  would  be  no  sense  in  saying  that  the  Free 
Masons,  the  Odd  Fellows,  and  the  Young  Men's 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  121 

Christian  Association  constitute  one  organization, 
for  as  a  matter  of  fact  they  do  not ;  they  never  were 
united  in  one  organization;  they  did  not  have  the, 
same  founders;  or  do  they  hold  the  same  prin- 
ciples of  organization.  It  is  equally  untrue  to  say 
that  a  lot  of  rival  sects  constitute  one  body. 

Then  secondly,  there  is  no  analogy  whatever 
between  a  number  of  independent  sects  and  the 
unity  of  a  living  body  such  as  the  Bible  represents 
the  Church  to  be,  when  it  calls  it  the  Body  of 
Christ.  Christ  had  only  one  human  body.  He 
did  not  live  in  several  human  bodies  at  one  and 
the  same  time.  "Is  Christ  divided?"  St.  Paul 
asks  of  those  who  said  I  am  of  Paul,  I  am  of 
Apollos,  and  who  would  divide  the  Church. 

Each  part  of  His  body  was  in  vital  and  visible 
articulation  with  the  whole,  was  nourished  by  one 
set  of  organs  dependent  upon  each  other ;  and  when 
this  vital  union  was  interfered  with  at  His  cruci- 
fixion, He  died.  "There  is  one  body."  "The  body 
is  one."  The  corporate  unity  of  the  Church  is  as- 
serted over  and  over  again,  and  to  divide  it  is 
condemned  as  sin. 

Thirdly,  the  Protestant  theory  is  opposed  to 
our  Lord's  prayer  in  which  He  made  the  unity  of 
the  Church  the  condition  of  missionary  success, 
and  prayed,  "Make  them  to  be  one  as  We  are  one, 
that  the  world  may  know  that  Thou  hast  sent  Me." 
Christ  was  one  in  substance  with  His  Father. 
They  were   co-eternal,    and   co-equal,    and   insep- 


122  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

arable;  and  such  unity  is  not  even  remotely  sug- 
gested by  the  disunion  of  a  number  of  rival  sects. 

Fourthly,  a  divided  Church  cannot  possibly 
perform  the  functions  of  the  one  Church,  because, 
as  we  fou.nd  in  the  first  chapter,  it  cannot  define 
the  faith  with  one  voice ;  it  cannot  administer  dis- 
cipline; and  it  cannot  witness  to  the  unity  of  the 
one  Christ,  the  one  Lord,  the  one  Faith,  and  the 
one  Baptism,  the  one  Body,  and  the  one  Spirit. 

Now  it  is  said  that  members  of  Protestant 
bodies  are  one  in  some  obscure  sense,  through  what 
is  called  "heart  unity" ;  that  notwithstanding  the 
fact  that  they  vigorously  maintain  and  justify  their 
independence,  differ  in  many  essential  articles  of 
belief,  are  more  or  less  jealous  of  each  other,  run 
off  with  each  other's  converts  when  they  get  a 
chance,  waste  an  immense  amount  of  money  and 
zeal  in  trying  to  maintain  their  differences,  they 
still  are  "one  at  heart." 

In  the  name  of  common  sense,  what  is  this 
heart  unity?  Can  any  living  man  define  it  intel- 
ligibly? Does  it  mean  anything,  or  amount  to 
anything,  beyond  an  occasional  handshaking  on 
platforms,  and  then  a  separation  which  leaves  each 
sect  as  set  as  ever,  in  the  resolution  to  keep  up  the 
old  divisions  ?  Besides,  sentimental  unity,  even 
if  it  did  exist,  is  not  organic  unity;  not  the  unity 
of  a  living  body;  not  the  unity  of  the  Church  of 
the  Bible  and  of  history. 

If  Protestants  want  and  profess  to  have  heart 
unity  in  any  real  and  practical  sense,  they  will 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  123 

get  it  in  one  body,  and  in  no  other  way.  Anything 
else  is  a  mere  fiction.  The  reason  why  the  Amer- 
ican Episcopal  Church  refuses  to  join  in  any 
union  meetings  with  Protestants  which  are  sup- 
posed to  promote  heart  unity,  is  certainly  not  be- 
cause she  fails  to  appreciate  their  Christian  char- 
acter and  good  works  as  individuals,  but  because 
as  organizations,  by  their  separate  existence,  they 
sanction  and  perpetuate  the  principle  of  division, 
the  sin  of  schism,  which  the  Church  and  the  Scrip- 
tures condemn;  and  it  is  precisely  because  these 
Christian  denominations  teach  so  much  truth,  and 
their  members  exhibit  such  holiness  of  life,  and 
they  accomplish  such  good  works  in  many  ways, 
and  become  so  influential,  and  so  greatly  respected 
by  all  sincere  men,  that  they  lend  respedahility 
to  the  principle  of  division  and  make  it  seem  justi- 
fiable and  harmless;  when  in  its  ultimate  results, 
it  is  destructive  of  all  that  makes  Christianity  a 
power  in  the  world,  and  is  absolutely  contrary  to 
God's  law. 

The  very  respectability  of  these  denominations 
makes  it  all  the  more  necessary  that  the  Church 
should  protest  against  their  position  as  organiza- 
tions, and  refuse  to  unite  with  them,  lest  men  lose 
sight  altogether  of  the  evil  of  a  divided  Christian- 
ity. The  Church  refuses  to  share  in  their  union 
meetings,  because  such  union  meetings,  if  they  have 
any  effect,  tend  to  obscure  the  real  issue.  They 
suppress  symptoms,  without  curing  the  disease. 
They   are  meant  to  convey  the  impression   that 


124  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

things  are  all  right,  when  they  are  all  wrong;  for 
what  is  the  use  of  keeping  up  the  appearance  of 
unity  by  such  meetings,  when  each  sectarian  goes 
home  as  determined  as  ever  to  propagate  his  own 
individual  sect  at  any  expense,  and  the  real  evil 
of  sectarian  division  is  untouched?  The  whole 
proceeding  resembles  the  administration  of  mor- 
phine, which  no  doubt  for  a  time  relieves  pain  and 
produces  pleasant  sensations;  but  which  also  ob- 
scures symptoms  of  the  disease  which  the  physician 
ought  to  know,  and  to  treat  radically.  Union  meet- 
ings may  palliate  the  symptoms  of  the  disease:  so 
far,  they  have  done  nothing  to  cure  it.  If  an  ex- 
change of  pulpits,  and  union  meetings,  can  bring 
about  unity  of  organization,  a  genuine  search  for 
the  radical  evil  itself,  that  would  be  one  thing ;  but 
such  exchanges  and  meetings  have  been  going  on 
for  many  years  among  Protestants,  and  they  seem 
no  nearer  corporate  union  than  they  were  fifty  or  a 
hundred  years  ago.  The  Church  cannot  take  any 
part  in  union  meetings,  which  ignore,  rather  than 
cure,  vital  divisions,  which  aim  at  anything  short 
of  the  surrender  of  whatever  prevents  organic 
unity;  and  the  Church  can  do  little  but  teach  her 
faith  and  wait  the  providence  of  God  in  the 
matter,  until  Protestants  are  willing  to  acknowl- 
edge that  division  is  deplorable  and  sinful,  and  to 
ask  in  all  seriousness.  What  were  the  original  and 
primitive  conditions  of  Church  unity  ?  By  whom 
and  how,  was  the  original  unity  broken?  Do  the 
essential  elements  of  such  unity  exist  to-day  ?    And 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  125 

how  can  unity  be  restored  again  ?  The  Church 
claims  that  it  has  not  broken  the  original  bonds  of 
unity,  but  has  had  a  continuous  organic  life  from 
Apostolic  days ;  and  that  therefore  it  does  not  need 
to  review  its  position,  or  change  it  in  any  essential 
point  of  organization. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  Methodist  and  Presby- 
terian bodies  and  others,  were  formed  by  men  who 
left  the  Church  of  England  and  formed  independ- 
ent sects  which  exist  to-day  as  rivals  of  the  old 
Church,  and  claimants  of  her  privileges  and  author- 
ity. They  are  unquestionably  modem  denomina- 
tions, while  the  Church  remains  the  old  Church. 
They  have  unquestionably  broken  the  original  bond 
of  Church  unity,  by  their  separation  from  the  old 
body ;  and  until  this  fact  is  clearly  recognized  and 
dealt  with  as  it  certainly  would  have  been  dealt 
with  a  thousand  years  ago  had  it  occurred  then, 
the  Church  cannot  compromise  her  belief  in  cor- 
porate unity,  by  any  masquerading  of  heart  unity. 
If  God  lays  down  conditions  of  corporate  unity, 
any  modem,  man-made  scheme  evolved  to  evade 
the  difficulties  of  a  very  dreadful  disunion,  is  of 
no  earthly  consequence.  Christians  were  united  in 
one  corporate  body  the  world  over  for  over  a 
thousand  years  from  the  first;  and  the  Scriptural 
conditions  of  unity  cannot  possibly  be  made  to  fit 
the  modem  Protestant  plan  of  agreeing  to  differ. 

There  is  one  Lord,  one  Faith,  one  Baptism, 
one  Body,  one  Spirit,  one  Christ,  the  Head  of  the 
one  Body ;  which  is  joined  and  knit  together,  each 


126  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

part  in  vital  union  with  all  the  others,  and  which 
lives  and  grows  as  bodies  live  and  grow,  union  be- 
ing a  condition  of  life,  and  disunion  fatal  to  it. 
The  Protestant,  when  he  is  pressed  with  the  evils 
of  disunion  and  the  Scriptural  statements  about 
corporate  unity,  will  attempt  to  justify  separation 
from  the  old  Church  and  the  formation  of  new 
sects,  on  the  ground  that  the  Church  had  become 
so  corrupt,  there  was  no  alternative.  We  reply 
that  in  the  Book  of  Revelation  our  Lord  is  speak- 
ing to  the  seven  Churches  of  Asia  through  St. 
John,  which  Churches  had  become  more  or  less  cor- 
rupt, and  He  is  dealing  with  cases  exactly  in  point. 
What  does  He  do  ?  Does  He  tell  them  to  with- 
draw from  the  corrupt  Churches,  and  to  form  new 
ones  ?  Certainly  not.  On  the  contrary  He  says 
to  them,  "Be  watchful,  and  establish  the  things 
that  remain,  which  were  ready  to  die.  Repent 
and  do  the  first  works.  That  which  ye  have,  hold 
fast  till  I  come."  That  is,  hold  fast  to  the  Church. 
Reform  must  be  accomplished  within  it;  and  to 
leave  it  is  not  reform  at  all,  but  rebellion. 

Moreover,  if  schism  be  ever  justifiable,  who  is 
to  judge  when  it  is  justifiable  ?  For  example,  the 
Methodists  left  the  Church  under  the  stress  of  a 
situation  which  soon  passed  away ;  and  a  little  pa- 
tience would  have  obviated  all  shadow  of  excuse 
for  it.  But  suppose  that  under  peculiar  pressure 
a  sect  is  formed  on  the  supposition  that  the  Church 
is  corrupt;  surely  when,  as  time  goes  on,  a  valid 
branch  of  the  old  Church  properly  organized  and 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  127 

reformed,  exists  in  the  same  country  with  the  sect, 
all  excuse  for  its  existence  is  taken  away;  and  if 
it  maintains  its  independence,  and  attempts  to  ex- 
ercise the  Church's  functions,  it  must  be  respon- 
sible for  the  sin  of  division  which  it  countenances 
and  approves  by  its  very  existence. 

The  American  Church  teaches  every  particle 
of  truth  held  by  all  Protestant  creeds  put  together. 
A  convert  coming  into  it  gives  up  nothing  but  his 
Protestant  denials  of  truth,  and  the  Church's  sys- 
tem could  be  easily  adapted  to  the  real  needs  of 
any  one  system.  Baptists  could  be  immersed  in 
the  Church,  Methodists  have  revivals  and  extem- 
pore, prayer  in  the  Church,  Friends  could  have 
their  silent  meetings,  their  plain  language  and 
dress,  and  as  a  simple  matter  of  fact,  not  one 
single  sect  in  the  United  States  to-day,  exists  to 
vindicate  any  particular  principle  or  truth  which 
the  Church  rejects,  or  which  the  members  of  the 
sect  would  have  to  give  up,  if  they  became  Church- 
men. So  we  claim  that  a  divided  Christendom  is 
not  only  unscriptural  and  disastrous,  but  that  it  is 
also  mthout  excuse  and  justification  of  any  sort, 
in  this  country. 

Doubtless  it  will  be  retorted  when  we  teach 
that  the  Church  is  one:  "There  are  nevertheless, 
as  you  admit,  three  distinct  bodies  today,  each 
claiming  to  be  part  of  the  ancient  Catholic  Church, 
the  Anglican,  the  Greek,  and  the  Eoman  Churches. 
How  are  you  going  to  reconcile  this  fact  with  your 
theory  about  unity,   when  you  claim  that  these 


128  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

three  together  constitute  the  one  Catholic  Church 
of  history,  and  are  one  body  ?" 

We  reply  that  the  suspension  of  intercom- 
munion between  the  three  parts  of  the  old  Church 
is  all  wrong  and  contrary  to  God's  law,  and  that 
it  is  the  result  of  sin,  and  that  it  has  done  an 
immense  deal  of  harm.  But  the  question  is,  after 
all.  Is  this  so  vital  as  to  be  fatal,  so  that  any  one  of 
the  three  has  actually  cut  itself  off  from  the  old 
Catholic  Church,  and  so  has  become  a  schism  ?  Or 
on  the  other  hand,  does  each  in  itself  possess  the 
essentials  of  Catholic  organic  unity  with  the  others, 
being  so  related  that  after  all  the  division  is  more 
apparent  than  real,  and  that  if  open  intercommun- 
ion between  the  three  were  to  be  again  acknowl- 
edged, nothing  would  be  necessary  but  the  mutual 
recognition  of  an  existing  bond  between  them 
which  made  them  one  ?  In  what  sense,  then,  are 
the  Koman,  Greek,  and  Anglican  bodies,  one  to- 
day? 

First,  they  all  trace  their  organic,  continuous 
descent  back  to  the  time  before  division  took  place, 
when  they  were  in  open  communion  with  each 
other  and  constituted  one  body.  They  all  had  the 
same  Apostolic  foundation,  they  all  inherit  the 
same  Catholic  faith,  sacramental  system,  and  min- 
isterial orders,  in  unbroken  succession.  They  all 
appeal  to  the  Catholic  consent  of  the  whole  Church 
as  expressed  in  the  general  councils,  and  to  the 
same  Scriptures  as  interpreted  by  the  Fathers. 
Each  in  its  own  jurisdiction  is  actually  the  ancient 


CATHOLIC- PRINCIPLES  129 

Church  of  the  land;  and  so,  if  intercommunion 
were  to  be  restored,  it  would  be  by  a  mutual 
acknowledgment  of  that  which  already  exists,  and 
not  by  any  vital  or  organic  change  in  any  one.  It 
is  precisely  on  this  basis  of  an  appeal  to  existing 
facts,  that  the  Anglican  and  Greek  Churches  are 
coming  to  a  better  understanding  of  their  mutual 
relations ;  and  that  individual  Greeks  are  acknowl- 
edging the  validity  of  Anglican  orders  and  sacra- 
ments, and  so  the  way  is  gTadually  being  opened, 
as  we  believe,  for  corporate  intercommunion  in  the 
future,  and  thus  at  least  one  of  the  divisions  will 
be  healed. 

Now  mark  you,  the  Greeks  cannot  and  do  not 
find  any  such  basis  of  union  with  the  Protestant 
sects,  simply  because  none  exists.  Historically 
these  sects  have  nothing  in  common  with  the 
Greeks,  being  self-created  and  voluntary  associa- 
tions of  men,  of  modern  origin,  and  recognizing 
no  authority  in  common  with  the  Greek  Church. 

After  the  Anglican  Church  reformed  herself, 
she  did  not  withdraw  from  union  with  the  Roman 
Church  at  all.  The  separation  between  us  and 
Rome  was  of  the  Pope's  making,  when  he  excom- 
municated Englishmen  during  Elizabeth's  reign ; 
and  he  did  it  on  the  supposition  that  nobody  could 
be  in  the  Church  unless  he  recognized  the  Pope  of 
Rome  as  the  source  and  centre  of  all  authority, 
to  whom  absolute  obedience  was  due.  If  this  as- 
sumption be  true,  then  doubtless  all  English 
Churchmen  are  out  of  the  Church,  and  in  refusing 


130  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

to  submit  to  Papal  obedience  have  cut  themselves 
off  from  the  unity  of  the  Church.  But  it  is  pre- 
cisely this  assumption  which  is  denied  by  the  hun- 
dred millions  of  English  and  Greek  Catholics,  who 
claim  that  obedience  to  Rome's  supremacy  was 
not  essential  to  Catholic  unity  by  divine  appoint- 
ment. The  full  papal  claims  are  of  comparatively 
modern  growth. 

Consequently,  in  repudiating  such  claims,  the 
Anglo-Catholic  Church  did  not  cut  herself  off  from 
Catholic  unity,  but  still  remains  what  she  was 
originally,  the  Catholic  Church  of  the  Anglo-Saxon 
race,  only  throwing  off  unwarranted  developments 
and  usurpations.  If  all  this  be  true,  then  Romans, 
Greeks,  and  Anglicans,  share  the  original  corporate 
life  of  the  one  body,  and  are  organically  related  in 
sacramental  union  with  each  other  now;  and  so 
while  the  suspension  of  visible  intercommunion  by 
Rome  is  deplorable,  it  is  not  necessarily  fatal  to 
the  Catholic  character  of  any  part  of  the  Church, 
because  the  essential  bond  of  unity  still  exists  be- 
tween them. 

Now  we  have  reviewed  the  statements  of  the 
Apostolic  Epistles  concerning  the  nature  of  the 
Catholic  Church  as  a  living  corporate  organism. 
We  have  found  that  it  is  visible,  that  it  is  a  living 
body,  that  it  has  organs  through  which  its  life  is 
nourished  and  continued,  and  that  it  perpetuates 
itself  by  a  process  of  continuous  growth  from  age 
to  age,  and  so  preserves  its  identity ;  that  being  the 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  131 

Body  of  Christ,  it  is  the  Body  in  which  He  dwells, 
and  through  which  He  teaches  and  heals  men. 

It  hardly  seems  necessary  to  point  out  the  fact 
that  all  this  is  fatal  to  the  Protestant  theory  of  the 
Church,  which  assumes  that  the  original  body  can 
be  cut  up  into  a  hundred  bodies,  and  still  live;  or 
that  a  brand  new  body  is  the  same  as  the  old  body ; 
or  that  a  hundred  distinct  bodies,  constitute  one 
body ;  or  that  any  body  organized  in  the  sixteenth 
century  by  men,  is  the  same  body  that  was  organ- 
ized in  the  first  century  by  the  Lord  Christ.  The 
teaching  of  the  Apostolic  Epistles  is  in  strict  har- 
mony with  the  Catholic  theory  of  the  Church,  and 
hopelessly  out  of  joint  with  the  Protestant  theory. 

Having  reviewed  the  Scriptural  teaching  con- 
cerning the  nature  of  the  Church,  we  must  now 
turn  to  the  history  of  the  Anglo-Catholic  Church, 
and  see,  if  we  can,  whether  in  her  origin,  and  her 
continuous  life,  and  her  organization  and  teaching, 
she  has  been,  and  is,  loyal  to  Catholic  principles. 


CHAPTER  IX 

FOUNDING  OF  THE  ANGLO-CATHOLIC  CHUKCH 

771  E  HAVE  now  found  that  the  Church  which 
W  was  created  bj  the  Lord  Christ  and  His 
Apostles,  under  the  guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
was  a  visible  Body,  having  the  unity  of  an  organ- 
ism; that  it  is  one  throughout  all  ages,  by  virtue 
of  its  continuous,  organic  life  from  one  age  to 
another.  If,  then,  the  American  Church  claims 
to  be  historically  part  of  the  old  Church,  it  must 
certainly  be  able  to  trace  its  continuous,  organic 
descent  from  one  age  to  another,  and  thus  show 
its  identity  with  the  Catholic  Church.  We  must 
note  the  Catholic  origin  of  the  Church  of  England, 
and  then  trace  its  history  through  the  Middle  Ages 
and  the  Reformation,  and  then  across  the  ocean 
where  we  find  it  at  first  known  as  the  Church  of 
England  in  the  Colonies,  and  then  later  the  Ameri- 
can Church,  after  the  colonies  became  independent 
and  the  national  life  of  the  United  States  begins. 
To  do  this  with  any  degree  of  thoroughness, 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  133 

would  necessitate  an  immense  deal  of  work  and 
time;  nevertheless,  it  is  possible  in  a  brief  space 
to  give  just  the  salient  facts  which  are  necessary 
to  establish  certain  principles,  and  to  prove  the 
continuity  of  the  Church.  In  other  words,  the 
continuity  of  the  Church  cannot  be  questioned  by 
anyone  except  at  certain  turning  points,  or  stages, 
which  are  comparatively  few  in  number;  just  as 
in  the  history  of  any  nation,  after  it  has  once  been 
established,  its  organic  life  goes  on  unintermptedly 
until  some  political  crisis  introduces  the  possibility 
of  a  radical  change  of  some  sort ;  which  crisis  must 
be  noted  by  the  historian,  to  determine  how  it 
affects  the  corporate  identity  of  the  nation  itself. 
The  history  of  the  Anglo-American  Church  divides 
itself  naturally  into  five  periods,  which  may  be 
summarized  as  follows :  First,  the  British  period, 
from  the  introduction  of  Christianity  into  Britain, 
to  the  arrival  of  Augustine  in  A.D.  596.  Second, 
the  Anglo-Saxon  period,  from  Augustine  to  the 
ISTorman  Conquest,  596-1066.  Third,  the  Anglo- 
I^orman  period,  from  the  ISTorman  Conquest  to  the 
Reformation,  1066-1534.  Fourth,  the  Post-Eef- 
ormation  period,  from  the  Reformation  to  the  in- 
troduction of  the  English  Church  into  the  Amer- 
ican Colonies,  1534-1607.  And,  Fifth,  from  the 
colonial  origin  of  the  Church,  to  the  independent 
organization  of  the  American  Church. 

ISTotice  that  these  periods  do  not  denote  any 
radical  break  in  the  historic  continuity  of  the  one 
Church,  nor  the  establishment  of  any  new  organ- 


134  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

ization;  but  rather  they  are  transition  periods  in 
the  history  of  one  and  the  same  organization,  from 
first  to  last.  It  will  therefore  be  necessary  to  con- 
sider only  the  facts  which  concern  these  turning 
points,  and  determine  their  effect  on  the  Church. 

The  Catholic  Church  was  introduced  into 
Britain,  by  the  beginning  of  the  third  century, 
and  probably  by  missionaries  from  Gaul,  or  mod- 
ern France.  Its  early  history  is  veiled  under  a 
number  of  curious  traditions,  which  however  in- 
teresting, are  historically  unreliable.  But  concern- 
ing the  fact  of  the  existence  of  the  Church  in  Brit- 
ain in  the  third  century,  there  cannot  be  the  slight- 
est doubt;  and  so  far  as  our  argument  is  con- 
cerned, it  is  of  no  particular  consequence  who  were 
the  actual  missionaries  who  introduced  Christian- 
ity into  Britain  from  the  Continent.  Representa- 
tive Bishops  from  the  British  Church  attended  the 
Council  of  Aries,  in  France,  A.D.  314,  the  Coun- 
cil of  Sardica  in  347,  the  Council  of  Ariminum  in 
359,  and  were  invited  to  the  Council  of  Nicea, 
and  in  a  letter  to  Athanasius,  sent  in  their 
adherence  to  the  Nicene  Creed.  This  proves  con- 
clusively several  things:  that  the  Church  existed 
in  Britain,  and  was  in  communion  with  the  rest  of 
the  Catholic  Church,  and  retained  the  Catholic 
ministry,  faith,  and  sacraments ;  for  otherwise,  it 
would  not  have  been  recognized  in  the  General 
Councils  as  a  valid  part  of  the  Church ;  and  so  the 
established  fact  of  intercommunion  is  sufficient 
pledge  and  certification  of  the  Church's  existence 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  135 

and  orthodoxy,  no  matter  who  its  first  founders 
may  have  been. 

When  the  Romans  withdrew  their  armies  from 
Britain  in  410,  Britain  was  invaded  and  conquered 
by  the  Saxons,  who  ahnost  exterminated  the 
Church,  driving  what  little  was  left  of  it  into 
Cornwall  and  Wales;  and  so  the  greater  part  of 
England  having  thus  relapsed  into  heathenism,  it 
became  necessary  that  it  should  be  re-converted 
from  without.  Gregory,  one  of  the  seven  deacons 
of  Rome,  who  was  afterwards  Pope  Gregory  the 
Great,  happened  to  see  some  Saxon  slaves  who 
were  exposed  in  the  market  at  Rome ;  and  through 
them  became  interested  in  the  conversion  of  the 
Saxons  of  Britain.  Up  to  this  time  he  seems  to 
have  been  ignorant  of  the  independent  existence  of 
the  British  Church.  When  Gregory  became  Pope, 
he  sent  Augustine  with  forty  monks  from  one  of 
the  Roman  monasteries  to  Britain ;  and  on  his  ar- 
rival Augustine  landed  on  the  Island  of  Thanet, 
and  by  invitation  of  the  King  of  Kent,  proceeded 
to  Canterbury,  in  the  year  597.  The  king,  whose 
wife  was  already  a  Christian  from  Gaul,  soon  be- 
came a  convert.  Augustine  found  the  Catholic 
Church  already  established  in  Britain,  but  driven 
by  the  Saxon  invasion  into  Wales.  In  its  isola- 
tion the  British  Church  maintained  a  certain  in- 
dependence, and  had  its  own  customs.  In  order  to 
bring  about  a  union  of  the  two  missions,  the  Brit- 
ish and  his  ©wn  Latin  mission,  Augustine  called 
two  meetings  of  the  British  Bishops ;  seven  of  them 


136  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

attended  these  meetings,  and  Augustine  demanded 
of  them  that  they  conform  to  the  Roman  custom 
of  keeping  Easter,  administering  Baptism,  wear- 
ing the  tonsure,  and  that  they  acknowledge  him  as 
their  metropolitan,  and  join  with  him  in  convert- 
ing the  Saxons.  The  British  Bishops  declined  to 
comply  with  his  demands.  So  the  two  missions 
existed  independently,  the  British  Church  con- 
fined to  Wales  and  making  few  or  no  converts,  and 
the  Latin  mission  growing  and  extending  itself 
over  England.  After  the  Saxon  Conquest,  all  Eng- 
land was  divided  into  seven  kingdoms,  and  Au- 
gustine introduced  the  Church  into  four  out  of  the 
seven.  He  went  back  to  France,  and  was  conse- 
crated a  Bishop  by  Virgilius,  Archbishop  of  Aries ; 
and  returning  to  England,  became  the  first  Arch- 
bishop of  Canterbury.  The  Latin  mission  took 
possession  of  much  of  the  southeastern  part  of  the 
Island.  But  after  the  death  of  the  Christian  king 
of  Northumbria,  most  of  Augustine's  converts 
lapsed  into  paganism,  and  only  one  kingdom,  that 
of  Kent,  and  a  part  of  Essex,  survived ;  and  so  the 
Latin  mission  was  almost  exterminated.  The 
British  mission  continued  its  independent  exist- 
ence, and  did  not  unite  with  the  rest  of  the  Church 
until  as  late  as  the  close  of  the  thirteenth  century. 
Augustine's  work  of  converting  Saxons  thus  being 
largely  undone,  we  come  now  to  the  advent  of 
missionaries  from  the  Celtic  Church  in  Ireland, 
which  was  not  in  any  immediate  dependence  on 
Rome. 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  137 

St.  Patrick,  a  priest  of  the  Celtic  Church,  was 
bom  probably  in  Scotland;  and  after  being  edu- 
cated in  France,  was  ordained  and  went  to  Ireland, 
and  was  largely  the  means  of  its  conversion  to 
Christianity.  Then  St.  Columba,  a  missionary 
from  the  Irish  or  Celtic  Church,  crossed  over  to 
Scotland,  and  founded  a  monastery  on  the  Island 
of  lona,  on  the  western  coast ;  and  from  lona  as 
a  missionary  centre,  the  northern  part  of  Scotland 
was  converted.  In  635  Aidan,  a  Celtic  mission- 
ary Bishop  from  lona,  founded  a  monastery  on 
the  Island  of  Lindisfarne  off  the  coast  of  North- 
umberland, and  commenced  his  work  among  the 
Saxons,  about  thirty  years  after  the  death  of  Au- 
gustine. After  laboring  about  thirty  years,  he 
succeeded  in  converting  about  half  of  England.  So 
now  we  have  two  missions :  the  Celtic  founded  by 
Aidan,  and  the  Latin  founded  by  Augiistine,  and 
the  credit  of  the  conversion  of  England  is  about 
equally  divided  between  them.  Augustine  was 
followed  by  five  Archbishops  ruling  over  the  Latin 
mission  with  Canterbury  as  its  centre. 

Each  of  these  missions  held  the  Catholic  min- 
istry and  faith,  and  administered  Catholic  sacrar 
ments;  and  it  was  only  necessary  to  unite  them 
in  one  body,  to  perfect  the  union  of  the  Church 
throughout  England.  A  conference  with  this  end 
in  view  was  held  between  the  Latin  and  Celtic 
missions  at  the  Abbey  of  Whitby  in  664.  After 
much  argument  on  both  sides,  it  was  decided  to 
follow  the  Latin  customs  and  leadership.     In  some 


138  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

way  the  opinion  of  "the  Church  of  the  English 
race"  in  general  was  ascertained,  and  Wighard 
was  elected  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  but  he  died 
before  he  could  be  consecrated ;  and  Pope  Vitalian 
selected  in  his  place,  Theodore,  a  Greek  priest  of 
the  Eastern  Church,  who  was  bom  in  the  city  of 
Tarsus. 

As  a  Greek,  he  was  acceptable  to  the  Celtic 
mission,  and  as  ordained  by  Vitalian,  he  was  ac- 
ceptable to  the  Latin  mission,  and  he  became  the 
seventh  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  A.D.  669. 

In  673  he  summoned  the  Council  of  Hertford, 
and  with  the  Bishops  and  clergy  of  the  two  mis- 
sions, he  organized  the  one  Catholic  Church  of 
England,  which  was  the  national  Church  of  the 
whole  land,  one  hundred  and  •  fifty-six  years  be- 
fore Egbert  united  the  seven  kingdoms  into  one 
State  by  conquest  in  829.  Thus  the  one  Church, 
precedes  the  one  State:  and  it  was  really  the 
Church  which  established  the  State,  rather  than, 
as  the  popular  notion  has  it,  that  the  State  created 
the  Church.     Theodore  died  in  690. 

At  this  point  we  come  to  the  first  critical  ob- 
jection to  the  independence  of  the  Church  of 
England,  and  it  is  made  by  Roman  Catholics  who 
say  that  the  Pope  of  Rome  sent  Augustine  to  Eng- 
land, and  that  therefor©  the  Pope  is  the  founder 
of  the  Church  of  England,  and  has  the  right  of 
supremacy  over  it. 

The  answer  to  this  assertion  is  manifold: 
Eirst,  as  we  have  found,  the  Catholic  Church,  duly 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  139 

organized  and  having  lawful  jurisdiction,  existed 
in  England  before  Augustine's  arrival.  Second, 
Augustine  converted  permanently  not  more  than 
half  of  England ;  and  the  Latin  mission  was  really 
only  one  of  three  missions,  which  contributed  to- 
wards the  formation  of  the  national  Church. 
Third,  if  it  is  maintained  that  by  establishing  a 
mission,  a  Church  acquires  permanent  jurisdiction 
over  it,  then  certainly  the  Roman  Church  must  it- 
self be  subject  to  the  Church  of  Jerusalem,  from 
which  it  originally  received  its  faith  and  orders, 
and  which  is  unquestionably  "the  mother  and 
mistress  of  all  Churches."  Fourth,  the  canons  of 
the  Council  of  Ephesus  forbid  any  Bishop  to 
occupy  or  claim  jurisdiction  over  any  Diocese 
which  has  not  been  his  from  the  first;  and  we 
have  found  that  Bishops  held  Catholic  jurisdiction 
in  England,  when  Augustine  landed.  And,  fifth,  it 
is  most  absurd  to  suppose  that  Augustine  could 
commit  the  Church  of  England  several  centuries 
in  advance,  to  papal  claims  and  doctrines  of  which 
neither  he  nor  the  Church  of  his  day,  had  even 
heard.  ^ 

In  view  of  these  facts,  Rome's  claim  to  be  the 
founder  of  the  Church  of  England  proves  to  be  un- 
tenable. 


^  There  is  a  sign  on  the  Lexington  Road  which  reads 
something  in  this  way:  "This  is  the  tavern  at  which  Paul 
Revere,  on  his  famous  ride  to  arouse  the  country  against 
the  British  troops,  would  have  stopped  had  it  been  built 
then!" 


140  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

When  Theodore  was  consolidating  the  missions, 
and  subdividing  the  larger  Dioceses  he  divided 
the  Diocese  of  York ;  and  Wilfrid,  the  Archbishop 
of  York,  protested  against  such  division,  and  ap- 
pealed to  the  Pope.  This  was  the  first  appeal  of 
an  English  Bishop  from  the  authority  of  his  Arch- 
bishop to  Rome ;  and  it  is  very  interesting  to  note, 
that  when  the  Pope  decided  against  the  division  of 
the  Diocese,  and  so  in  Wilfrid's  favor,  Archbishop 
Theodore  paid  no  attention  whatever  to  the  papal 
authority,  and  Wilfrid  was  imprisoned,  and  punr 
ished  for  disloyalty.  But  if  the  Pope  of  Rome 
was  then  acknowledged  to  be,  by  divine  right,  the 
head  of  the  Church,  and  Home  the  ultimate  court 
of  appeal,  surely  Archbishop  Theodore  would  have 
accepted  his  decision  as  conclusive. 

From  the  time  of  Theodore  to  the  time  of  the 
ISTorman  conquest,  a  period  of  four  hundred  years, 
nothing  whatever  happened  which  can  be  said  to 
interrupt  the  continuous  organic  life  of  the  Church 
of  England.  But  during  all  this  time,  the  papal 
claim  of  universal  jurisdiction  was  growing.  Be- 
ginning with  a  Primucy  of  honor  among  equals, 
which  was  voluntarily  yielded  to  the  Bishop  of 
Rome  by  the  whole  Church,  because  he  was  the 
Bishop  of  the  imperial  city,  the  Pope  developed 
the  claim  of  a  supremacy  of  office  over  inferiors, 
and  the  right  to  hear  appeals ;  and  then  later  from 
this  was  evolved  the  idea  of  Hildebrand,  that  the 
Church  was  a  great  spiritual  monarchy  under  the 
Pope  as  the  autocratic  ruler  of  nations,  as  well  as 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  141 

of  the  Church.  England,  occupying  an  isolated 
position,  was  not  for  a  long  time  wholly  accessible 
to  the  influence  of  continental  thought,  and  the 
growth  of  papal  claims;  but  when  William  of 
Normandy  conquered  England  with  the  Pope's 
blessing  on  his  undertaking,  he  brought  in  the  new 
conception  of  Roman  authority,  and  the  Norman 
conquest  of  the  English  State  is  practically  syn- 
onymous with  the  jDapal  conquest  of  the  English 
Church.  Still,  in  every  age  previous  to  the  Ref- 
ormation, Bishops  and  kings  made  abortive  at- 
tempts to  assert  and  maintain  the  fast  passing 
liberties  of  the  Church  and  nation. 

Down  to  the  time  of  the  Reformation,  the  con- 
tinuity and. Catholic  character  of  the  Church  of 
England  cannot  be  disproved.  The  fact  that  for 
several  hundred  years  she  was  forced  into  submis- 
sion to  a  foreign  Patriarch  under  terrible  pressure, 
which  was  quite  as  much  political  as  it  was  eccle- 
siastical, does  not  necessarily  destroy  her  corporate 
identity.  A  man  is  the  same  man  when  he  is  tied 
and  bound  hand  and  foot  by  a  stronger  man, 
neither  does  he  forfeit  his  legal  rights  merely  be- 
cause for  the  time  he  is  prevented  from  exercising 
them. 

We  come  now  to  the  Reformation  within  the 
Church  of  England;  and  as  this  period  is  greatly 
misunderstood,  it  will  be  necessary  to  proceed  more 
slowly,  and  to  dwell  on  passing  events  more  at 
length.  A  certain  objection  should  be  noted  at 
this  point. 


142  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

It  may  be  said — ^'Granted  that  the  Church  of 
England  had  a  continuous  organic  life  to  the  time 
of  the  Reformation,  yet  she  was  so  full  of  medi- 
aeval corruptions,  superstitions,  and  abuses,  that 
she  forfeited  her  spiritual  character  and  authority 
as  a  valid  Church  of  Christ."  The  reply  is  mani- 
fold: 

First.  Our  Lord  expressly  recognized  the  valid 
exercise  of  official  authority  on  the  part  of  the 
officers  of  the  Jewish  Church,  and  commanded 
obedience  to  them,  even  while  He  warned  men 
against  following  their  error  of  doctrine  and  life. 

Second.  He  recognized  the  official  authority 
of  the  corrupt  Churches  of  Asia,  even  when  He 
condemned  their  corruption  and  urged  reform. 

Third.  If  the  personal  failings  of  a  Church 
officer  invalidate  his  official  acts,  then  there  is  ab- 
solutely no  security  of  receiving  valid  sacraments 
in  any  religious  body. 

Fourth.  Many  of  the  mediteval  corruptions  in 
doctrinal  teaching  in  the  Church  of  England  were 
but  floating  errors  introduced  from  the  Continent ; 
and  were  never  officially  adopted  by  the  Church 
nor  were  they  incorporated  in  her  official  formulae. 

Fifth.  There  was  far  more  evangelical  preach- 
ing, and  personal  religion  and  devotion  among  the 
mediaeval  clergy  and  laity  than  Protestants  sup- 
pose; and  the  charge  of  universal  corruption  and 
ignorance  is  a  figinent  of  Protestant  imagination, 
pure  and  simple. 

Sixth.    With  all  their  corruptions,  the  medi- 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  143 

seval  clergy  and  laity  of  the  Church  were  loyal  to 
whole  realms  of  truth  which  Protestants  discard, 
and  were  faithful  to  many  religious  duties  which 
Protestants  as  a  class  neglect;  and  so  if  the  actual 
facts  of  the  case  are  known,  honestly  considered 
and  compared,  the  wholesale  charge  of  apostacy 
against  the  Mediseval  Church  of  England,  is  quite 
likely  to  recoil  against  those  who  make  it. 


CHAPTER  X 

THE  REFORMATION  IN  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND 

CHE  popular  idea  among  Protestants  seems  to 
be,  that  the  Church  of  England  was  founded 
by  Henry  the  Eighth;  and  in  accounting  for  the 
prevalence  of  this  mistake,  we  must  remember  that 
there  are  two  religious  parties  to-day  that  are 
greatly  interested  in  perpetuating  it.  First,  the 
different  Protestant  denominations ;  because  if  the 
Church  of  England  was  founded  by  Henry  the 
Eighth,  then  of  course  it  follows  that  the  Church 
is  nothing  but  a  Protestant  sect;  and  therefore 
can  claim  no  special  historic  advantage,  or  author- 
ity, over  Protestant  Christians,  as  being  part  of 
the  ancient  Catholic  Church  which  was  founded 
by  our  Lord  and  His  Apostles.  Again,  the  Ro- 
man Catholics  are  interested  in  propagating  the 
same  mistake;  because  if  it  be  true,  then  they 
thereby  disprove  the  Catholic  character  of  the 
Church  of  England,  and  so  remove  the  greatest 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  145 

obstacle  that  Rome   has   to  her  progress   among 
English-speaking  peoples. 

Doubtless  in  most  cases  the  mistake  occurs 
through  honest  ignorance  of  Church  history;  but 
however  it  originates,  both  Romanists  and  Protest- 
ants have  a  suspiciously  strong  motive  for  perpet- 
uating it  and  making  the  most  of  it. 

But  the  assumption  seems  unreasonable  from 
the  start :  for  the  supposition  that  a  King  of  a  great 
realm,  merely  by  reason  of  a  personal  quarrel  with 
the  Pope,  could  suddenly  bring  about  a  tremendous 
reaction  against  the  acknowledged  authority,  of 
Rome  throughout  England,  among  people  who 
loved  their  Church  and  were  ready  to  die  for  it, 
without  any  other  pre-existing  and  adequate  mo- 
tive for  such  rebellion,  without  any  other  determin- 
ing cause  or  overwhelming  moral  force  behind  the 
movement,  is  incredible.  Radical  religious  reforms 
are  not  born  of  the  caprice  of  a  sensual  monarch. 
The  Reformation  in  England  was  the  cumulative 
effect  of  centuries  of  oppression  and  abuse.  It  was 
the  outburst  of  a  long  suppressed  sense  of  wrong 
and  injustice.  It  was,  in  fact,  but  the  final  cul- 
mination of  a  movement  which  would  eventually 
have  produced  a  radical  change  in  the  relation  of 
the  Church  to  Rome,  even  if  Henry  the  Eighth 
had  never  been  born.  Henry  furnished  the  occa- 
sion for  the  Reformation ;  he  did  not  furnish  the 
cause  of  it. 

This  is  how  so  judicial  a  writer  as  the  late 
Dean  Church  puts  the  matter : 


146  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

"Henry  had  the  nation,  Bishops  and  clergy, 
Peers  and  Commons,  at  his  back,  in  their  deep 
hatred,  a  feeling  not  of  yesterday,  of  the  arrogance 
and  extortion  of  the  Koman  Courts.  Foreign  in- 
terference and  greed,  long  practised  in  fearless  se- 
curity of  Rome,  and  borne,  not  without  much  bad 
language,  by  a  much-enduring  clergy  and  laity  in 
England,  ended  in  a  sullen  disgust,  not  yet  with 
the  Roman  creed,  but  with  Roman  practical  ways. 
So  when  Henry  stood  up  to  the  Pope,  and  asserted 
the  independence  of  the  English  kingdom  and  the 
English  Church,  though  he  put  his  claim  in  terms 
which  implied  a  new  submission  to  himself,  even 
Fisher,  in  the  first  and  less  violent  form  of  the 
claim,  could  accept  it ;  and  the  other  Bishops,  like 
Gardiner,  made  no  difficulty  about  it.  For  the 
independence  which  Henry  claimed,  he  claimed 
not  as  the  author  of  a  new  form  of  religion,  but 
as  the  representative  of  the  ancient  and  existing 
Church,  which  he  was  to  protect  and  reform,  but 
not  to  create  anew 

"To  the  end,  the  independence  of  the  English 
Crown  and  Church  was  the  ruling  and  paramount 
consideration,  and  the  continuity  of  the  Church 
was  never  so  much  as  touched  by  his  measures.  In 
truth  .  .  .  the  English  ideas  of  the  relation  of 
the  kingdom  and  Church  to  Rome,  and  of  the 
obedience  due  to  the  Pope,  had,  from  the  days  of 
William  the  Conqueror,  been  much  looser  than 
those  which  prevailed  on  the  Continent,  where 
rulers  and  people  were  in  closer  and  more  con- 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  147 

stant  contact  with  the  Popes,  and  where  the  study 
of  the  canon  law  was  a  perpetual  reminder  of  their 
claims."  * 

In  the  first  place,  the  more  devout  men  in 
the  Church  were  profoundly  dissatisfied  with  the 
spiritual  condition  of  the  clergy,  and  the  lack  of 
discipline  and  learning  among  them.  In  1409 
English  deputies  from  Oxford  to  the  Council  of 
Pisa  reported  certain  grievances  which  needed 
reformation,  asserting  that  many  benefices  were 
conferred  on  one  person,  that  the  monasteries  were 
exempt  from  episcopal  control  and  so  were  degen- 
erating in  manners  and  morals,  and  that  very 
many  of  the  clergy  did  not  reside  in  their  parishes, 
which  were  sadly  neglected,  and  that  the  constant 
custom  of  appealing  to  Eome  for  the  settlement  of 
disputed  matters,  promoted  bribery  and  injustice. 
The  Kings  of  England  and  France,  in  1425, 
appealed  to  the  Pope,  through  deputies,  at  the 
Council  of  Basle,  urging  reform.  Colet,  Dean  of 
St.  Paul's  in  London,  preached  a  remarkable  ser- 
mon on  the  great  necessity  of  reform,  before  a  con- 
vocation of  clergy  in  1511.  IsTearly  a  third  of  all 
the  English  parishes  were  under  the  care  of  mon- 
asteries, which  could  not  properly  provide  for 
them.  There  was  constant  friction  between  the 
Government  and  growing  political  power  of  the 
court  of  Rome.  The  whole  nation  complained  of 
the  enormous  taxes  Rome  exacted,  and  resented  the 


'Occasional  Papers,  vol.  I.,  pp.  396,  397. 


148  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

interference  of  the  Pope  in  the  appointment  of 
Bishops  for  English  sees;  many  of  whom  were 
Italians,  and  did  not  reside  in  their  Dioceses  at 
all,  and  could  not  even  speak  English.  The  pop- 
ular notion  concerning  purgatory,  the  sale  of  in- 
dulgences, the  growth  of  Mariolatry,  all  contrib- 
uted towards  the  growth  of  a  restless  desire  for 
change  of  some  sort.  Cardinal  Wolsey  began  the 
movement,  before  the  King's  divorce  was  ever 
thought  of,  by  seeking  power  from  the  Pope  to 
visit  and  reform  the  monasteries,  to  suppress  some 
of  the  smaller  ones,  and  to  use  the  endowments  to 
establish  new  professorships  at  the  Universities, 
and  to  endow  new  Bishoprics.  So  that  neither  the 
idea  of  a  reformation,  nor  the  movement  towards 
it,  originated  with  Henry  the  Eighth. 

The  facts  concerning  the  divorce  are  somewhat 
as  follows.  Henry  had  married  his  brother's 
widow,  Catherine  of  Aragon;  and  as  the  table  of 
forbidden  degrees  prohibited  marriage  with  a 
sister-in-law,  it  had  been  necessary  to  get  a  dis- 
pensation from  the  Pope,  to  set  aside  the  law. 
Henry  was  eighteen,  and  Catherine  twenty-six; 
and  the  disparity  between  their  ages  soon  began  to 
tell.  After  Henry  had  reason  to  despair  of  having 
a  male  heir  to  succeed  him,  he  became  alienated 
from  Catherine,  and  interested  himself  in  Anne 
Boleyn,  a  lady  of  the  court.  As  a  result  of  his 
association  with  this  woman  he  soon  desired  a  di- 
vorce from  his  wife,  and  suddenly  developed  what 
he  claimed  was  a  conscientious  doubt  of  the  valid- 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  149 

ity  of  his  marriage  with.  Catherine,  because  she 
was  his  sister-in-law.  Henry  laid  the  matter  before 
the  Bishops  at  Westminster,  appealed  to  the  Pope 
to  declare  his  marriage  null  and  void,  and  endeav- 
ored to  force  the  Pope  to  let  Cardinal  Wolsey  try 
the  case  in  England.  The  Pope  refused  to  declare 
the  marriage  illegal,  and  appointed  Wolsey  and 
Campeggio  as  legates,  to  hear  the  case  in  England. 
The  King  gave  the  necessary  license  for  the  trial. 
The  Queen  at  once  appealed  to  the  Pope,  and  the 
Pope  responded  by  recalling  the  case  to  himself; 
and  so  the  King's  court  had  to  be  dissolved  and 
dismissed.  Then  the  King  sent  deputies  to  all  the 
Continental  Universities,  laying  the  case  before 
them.  The  Pope  proceeded  to  inhibit  Henry  from 
marrying  again  while  the  case  was  pending,  and 
Henry  retaliated  by  prohibiting  the  publication  of 
the  decree  in  England;  and  so  the  King  and  the 
Pope  came  into  direct  and  final  collision. 

Convocation  met  and  voted  in  favor  of  the 
divorce.  Cranmer  maintained  that  the  Pope  can- 
not dispense  a  law  of  God,  and  that  the  marriage, 
being  obviously  null  and  void  from  the  beginning, 
there  was  no  need  whatever  to  appeal  to  the  Pope ; 
and  the  King  was  at  liberty  to  act  as  though  the 
marriage  had  never  occurred.  This  phase  of  the 
matter  naturally  appealed  to  Henry,  and  he  made 
Cranmer  Archbishop.  Cranmer  then  petitioned  the 
King  to  license  him  to  try  the  case  in  England, 
which  request  the  King  gi-antcd;  and  then  Cran- 
mer held  court,  and  pronounced  the  marriage  with 


150  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

Catherine  null  and  void  from  the  beginning.  The 
Pope  reaffirmed  its  validity  and  excommunicated 
Henry  in  1538,  who  had  already  married  Anne 
Boleyn. 

Now  was  the  Church's  opportunity  to  assert 
herself. 

The  King's  quarrel  with  the  Pope  placed  the 
King  on  the  Church's  side,  in  her  effort  to  regain 
her  ancient  independence;  and  the  reform  move- 
ment culminated  in  a  series  of  legal  enactments 
by  which  the  papal  supremacy  was  finally  re- 
pudiated. 

The  clergy  and  people  of  England  had  grad- 
ually been  prepared  for  this  formal  action.  In 
the  first  place,  England  had  been  at  peace  for  some 
time,  and  people  had  had  time  to  think.  A  new 
spirit  of  national  independence  was  growing 
throughout  the  land.  The  invention  of  printing 
had  been  the  means  of  disseminating  information 
about  the  Church  and  her  history.  The  people 
had  learned  to  despise  the  Popes,  because  for 
nearly  sixty  years  there  had  been  hardly  a  single 
good  Pope,  and  many  were  utterly  vile ;  and  so  the 
masses  felt  little  loyalty  to  the  papal  see,  and  were 
becoming  slowly  alienated. 

Next  we  come  to  the  question  of  appeals  to 
Rome. 

Appeals  had  originally  been  made  to  the  Pa- 
triarch of  Rome  in  the  primitive  Church,  merely 
because  he  was  the  most  conspicuous  and  often  the 
most  learned  Bishop  of  the  Church ;  taking  prece- 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  151 

dence  of  other  Bishops,  because  he  was  the  Bishop 
of  the  imperial  city,  which  was  the  head  of  the 
Roman  empire.  Such  appeals,  of  course,  were 
quite  voluntary.  Then  later,  as  Rome's  power 
grew,  the  Popes  began  to  claim  a  legal  right  to 
hear  appeals  ex  o/Jicio;  and  then  to  impose  their 
decisions  by  divine  right,  as  heads  of  the  Church. 
Of  course  this  took  an  immense  number  of  cases 
out  of  the  English  courts  to  Rome  for  trial,  and 
gave  opportunity  for  a  great  deal  of  fraud,  brib- 
ery and  oppression,  and  caused  interminable  de- 
lays. Attempts  to  introduce  the  claim  of  hearing 
appeals  at  Rome  in  the  English  Church  were  made 
soon  after  the  Conquest,  but  were  withstood  until 
the  time  of  Stephen. 

A  further  step  in  the  legal  procedure  was  taken 
when  an  act  was  passed  preventing  appeals  to 
Rome,  on  the  supposition  that  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land was  competent  to  settle  her  o^vti  affairs  with- 
out the  assistance  of  an  Italian  Bishoj). 

Rome  also  claimed  to  be  the  source  of  all 
episcopal  authority;  and  for  some  time  the  Pope 
had  nominated  the  Bishops  who  were  to  fill  Eng- 
lish Dioceses,  and  had  greatly  increased  his  power 
in  England  by  filling  English  sees  with  Italians, 
who  were  ready  tools  of  the  Pope,  or  neglected  their 
Dioceses  altogether. 

The  Statute  of  Provisors,  of  Edward  III, 
1351,  was  an  attempt  to  stop  this;  and  a  new  act 
was  passed,  claiming  for  the  Cro^vn  the  right  of 
nomination  to  English  Bishoprics.     The  Pope  had 


152  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

also  claimed  the  right  to  dispense  Englishmen 
from  obeying  the  laws  of  the  English  Church  when 
he  saw  fit,  in  certain  particulars;  and  this  power 
of  dispensation  was  taken  away  from  him  and 
vested  not  in  the  King,  but  in  the  Archbishop  of 
Canterbury,  by  Act  of  Parliament  in  1533.  The 
19th  clause  reads:  "Such  dispensation  shall  be 
granted  to  the  sovereign,  and  his  subjects,  by 
Archbishops  of  Canterbury,  provided  always,  that 
neither  this  Act,  nor  anything  or  things  therein 
contained,  shall  be  hereafter  interpreted  or  ex- 
pounded that  your  Grace,  your  nobles,  and  your 
subjects,  intend  by  the  same  to  decline  or  vary 
from  the  Congregation  of  Christ's  Church,  in  any- 
thing concerning  the  very  Articles  of  the  Catholic 
Faith  of  Christendom,  or  in  any  other  things  de- 
clared by  Holy  Scripture  and  the  Word  of  God 
necessary  for  your,  and  their,  salvation." 

This  certainly  does  not  sound  much  like  mak- 
ing a  new  Church,  and  a  new  Creed. 

Now  we  come  to  the  last  and  formal  repudia- 
tion of  the  spiritual  jurisdiction  of  Rome.  The 
Convocation  of  Canterbury,  March  31st,  1534,  and 
the  Convocation  of  York,  May  5th,  1534,  passed 
an  act  declaring  that  "The  Bishop  of  Rome  hath 
not  by  Scripture  any  greater  authority  in  England 
than  any  other  foreign  Bishop." "  ^ 

^  "Such  a  statement  left  untouched  any  primacy  or 
authority  whi.ch  the  popes  might  have  acquired  through  the 
dignity  of  their  position  or  by  consent  or  custom  of  the 
Church.     It  denied  the  doctrine  of  a  divine  prerogative  of 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  153 

This  declaration  was  subscribed  to  by  both 
houses  of  Convocation,  by  the  Bishops  and  chapters 
of  Cathedrals,  by  the  monastic  bodies,  by  the  Uni- 
versities of  Oxford  and  Cambridge,  and  by  the 
parish  clergy ;  and  the  edict  was  published  through- 
out the  land  in  all  churches,  on  Sundays  and  feast 
days.  By  this  Act,  the  authority  of  the  Popes  of 
Rome  in  England  was  completely  and  finally  re- 
pudiated ;  and  from  a  legal  standpoint  at  least,  so 
far  as  any  connection  with  Rome  went,  the  Ref- 
ormation was  an  accomplished  fact. 

Be  it  well  observed,  this  was  not  the  formation 
of  a  new  Church,  or  a  new  Creed,  not  the  separa- 
tion from  any  Church,  not  even  from  the  Roman 
Church  as  a  corporate  body;  but  it  was  the  legal 
repudiation  of  the  claim  of  the  Pope  of  Rome, 
first,  to  lawfully  impose  taxes  on  English  Church- 
men ;  Second,  to  hear  appeals  from  the  decisions 
of  the  English  courts;  Third,  to  appoint  or  nom- 
inate Bishops  for  English  dioceses ;  and  fourth,  to 
exercise  spiritual  jurisdiction  over  English  Church- 
men. Notice  that  these  acts  are  passed  by  the 
highest  authority  in  Church  and  State;  and  that 
it  is  the  old  Church  of  the  land,  acting  for  itself, 
through  its  own  representatives ;  and  that  the  basis 
of  this  repudiation  of  papal  authority,  was  not  the 
assumption  of  the  right  to  make  a  new  Church, 


rule  inherent  in  the  popes,  because  given  to  St.  Peter,  by  as- 
serting that  Scripture  contains  no  evidence  of  such  a  ])re- 
rogative."  Wakeman'a  History  of  the  Church  of  England, 
eh.  xi,  p.  222. 


154  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

but  to  restore  the  old  Catholic  Church  of  the  land, 
to  the  independence  of  Rome  which  it  had  en- 
joyed in  the  j^ast.  It  never  entered  the  heads  of 
the  King,  the  Parliament,  or  the  Houses  of  Con- 
vocation, for  one  single  moment,  that  they  were 
making  a  new  Church  or  that  they  could,  as  they 
said,  "decline  or  vary  in  anything  concerning  the 
very  Articles  of  the  Catholic  Faith." 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  even  Henry  the  Eighth 
never  had  any  notion  of  radical  reform  beyond 
repudiating  paj^al  authority  in  order  to  substitute 
his  own.  He  did  want  to  control  the  Church,  and 
rob  it  of  its  endowments ;  and  he  tried  his  best  to 
do  it.  He  did  not  want  to  make  a  new  Church, 
and  he  never  attempted  anything  of  the  sort. 

In  a  letter  which  Henry  caused  to  be  addressed 
to  Cardinal  Pole,  he  says :  "Ye  suppose  the  King's 
grace  to  be  severed  from  the  unity  of  Christ's 
Church.  .  .  .  His  full  purpose  and  intent  is,  to 
see  the  Laws  of  Almighty  God  freely  and  sincerely 
preached  and  taught,  and  Christ's  faith  without 
blot  kept  and  preserved  in  this  realm ;  and  not  to 

SEPAKATE  HIMSELF  FROM  THE  UNITY  OF  ChRISt's 

Catholic  Church^  but  inviolably  at  all  times 
TO  keep  and  observe  the  SAME;,  and  to  redeem 
His  Church  of  England  out  of  all  captivity  of  for- 
eign powers  heretofore  usurped  therein,  into  the 
Christian  state  that  all  Churches  were  at  the  begin- 
ning." 

Henry  claimed  to  be  the  Supreme  Head  of  the 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  155 

Church  of  England,  but  Convocation  admitted  his 
claim,  "only  so  far  as  the  law  of  Christ  will  allow." 

He  tried  to  force  Convocation  to  give  up  all 
canon  law  into  his  hands,  so  that  it  could  have  no 
force  apart  from  his  word;  but  the  Bishops  de- 
clined to  do  anything  of  the  sort.  Henry  op- 
pressed the  Church  in  every  way  he  could.  He 
intimidated  its  clergy,  robbed  the  monasteries  of 
over  two  hundred  and  fifty  million  dollars'  worth 
of  property,  and  slaughtered  many  who  opposed 
him.  He  did  everything  he  could  to  acquire  auto- 
cratic power  over  the  Church:  but  the  one  thing 
he  most  certainly  did  not  do,  did  not  attempt  to  do, 
and  had  no  thought  of  doing,  was  to  make  a  new 
Church.  The  Church  he  robbed,  oppressed,  and 
insulted,  was  the  old  Catholic  Church  of  the  land, 
and  there  was  no  other. 

If  the  Church  of  England  separated  from  the 
Roman  Catholic  Church  in  England,  as  some  peo- 
ple assert,  then  certainly  there  would  have  been 
two  religious  bodies  in  England;  the  old  Church, 
and  the  new  sect.  But  as  a  matter  of  fact,  the 
papal  supremacy  was  discarded  and  there  was  only 
one  Church  in  England  still.  There  was  the  old 
Church,  and  there  was  no  other ;  no  Roman  Cath- 
olic Church,  no  Protestant  sect,  nothing  whatever 
from  which  the  Church  could  have  separated.  All 
Churchmen  worshipped  in  the  same  churches,  re- 
cited the  same  creeds,  received  the  sacraments  at 
the  hands  of  the  same  clergy,  under  the  care  of  the 
same  Bishops,  throughout  the  land ;  and  the  Church 


156  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

was  still  kno^^al  bj  the  same  old  name,  "Ecclesia 
Anglicana,"  or  the  English  Church,  so  called  in 
the  Magna  Charta  of  King  John,  long  before  the 
Reformation.  Never,  at  any  time  before  the  Ref- 
ormation, was  she  known  in  her  legal  title  as  the 
Roman  Church,  or  the  "Roman  Catholic  Church," 
not  even  when  the  papal  power  was  strongest  in 
England,  and  never  since  the  Reformation  has  she 
adopted  the  name  "Protestant." 

Protestants  sometimes  ask.  Was  not  the  Church 
of  England  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  before 
the  Reformation?  We  reply  by  asking:  If  the 
Sultan  of  Turkey  by  gradual  encroachments 
through  superior  power  and  political  influence 
should  gain  ascendency  over  the  Kingdom  of 
Greece  for  a  while,  and  the  Greeks  should  be 
forced  to  submit  under  protest,  would  that  make 
Turks  out  of  the  Greeks  ?  And  if  the  Greeks  rose 
in  rebellion  against  this  Turkish  usurpation,  and 
regained  their  former  independence,  would  it  be 
truthful  to  say  that  before  the  rebellion,  Greece 
was  Turkey,  or  Greeks  were  Turks?  Most  cer- 
tainly not.  Would  it  be  true  to  say,  that  Greece, 
freed  from  Turkish  power,  was  a  new  state,  when 
it  still  retained  its  old  laws,  its  old  territory,  its 
old  legislative  bodies,  and  its  old  national  tradi- 
tions, practically  the  same  as  they  were  before  the 
Sultan  of  Turkey  gained  any  power  over  Greece? 
Most  certainly  not. 

Now  granting  that  Henry  the  Eighth  was  a 
licentious,  brutal  hypocrite,  and  one  of  the  great- 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  157 

est  thieves  the  world  has  ever  known,  is  it  fair  to 
transfer  the  reproach  of  his  misdeeds  to  the 
Church,  which  took  advantage  of  his  position  to 
regain  her  former  liberties — the  Church  which  he 
abused,  intimidated,  insulted,  and  did  his  best  to 
control,  yet  Avhich  proved  too  strong  for  him  ?  The 
Church  existed  for  over  a  thousand  years  before 
he  was  born;  and  has  lived  on  now,  nearly  four 
hundred  years  since  he  died.  Whether  Henry 
was  saint  or  devil,  God  certainly  overruled  his 
folly  for  a  good  purpose;  and  beyond  this  fact, 
the  Church  is  not  concerned  about  him  one  way  or 
the  other. 

The  whole  question  of  the  relation  of  the 
Church  of  England  to  the  papacy  can  be  stated  in 
a  few  words :  If  the  Pope  of  Rome  was  by  divine 
appointment  the  supreme  head  of  the  whole  Cath- 
olic Church,  so  that  he  was  the  centre  of  unity  and 
the  source  of  all  authority,  then  certainly  when  the 
Church  of  England  repudiated  his  authority  she 
committed  ecclesiastical  suicide,  and  is  to-day 
nothing  but  a  Protestant  sect.  But  if  on  the  other 
hand,  the  Pope  of  Rome  could  claim  lawfully 
nothing  but  a  primacy  of  honor  in  the  Church,  and 
no  spiritual  authority  whatever  over  the  Church  of 
England,  then  the  Church  not  only  had  a  right  to 
repudiate  his  tyranny,  but  she  was  morally  bound 
so  to  do,  in  the  interest  of  truth  and  her  o"svn  well 
being ;  and  in  so  doing,  she  separated  neither  from 
the  Catholic  Church  as  a  whole,  nor  from  any  part 


158  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

of  it,  not  even  from  the  Churches  still  under  papal 
obedience,  as  we  shall  presently  see. 

In  1536,  Convocation  set  forth  ten  Articles  of 
Religion,  defining  Catholic  doctrine  as  opposed  to 
the  Continental  extravagances,  and  also  published 
a  book  of  instructions  called  "The  Institution 
(that  is,  instruction)  of  a  Christian  Man."  Both 
Articles  and  book  were  subsequently  revised  and 
re-issued.  Parts  of  the  public  services  and  the 
Holy  Scriptures  had  already  been  translated  into 
English ;  and  in  the  reigii  of  Edward  VI.,  Henry's 
son  and  successor,  the  first  Prayer  Book  in  Eng- 
lish was  published  in  1549,  representing  the  doc- 
trinal basis  of  the  Reformation,  and  teaching  the 
Catholic  faith.  Edward's  successor,  Queen  Mai*y, 
was  an  ardent  papist,  and  under  one  pretext  and 
another  she  drove  the  English  Bishops  and  many  of 
the  clergy  from  their  dioceses  and  parishes,  replac- 
ing them  with  Roman  Bishops.  She  imprisoned 
others,  and  burnt  two  hundred  and  seventy-seven 
persons  at  the  stake.  Many  of  the  clergy  fled  to 
the  Continent,  and  the  lay  people  were  terrified 
into  submission;  and  so  the  Church  was  brought 
again  under  papal  power.  But  she  and  Cardinal 
Pole  died  on  the  same  day,  and  under  Elizabeth, 
her  successor,  the  Church  was  again  freed  from 
papal  supremacy. 

Elizabeth  found  that  ten  of  Mary's  Roman 
Bishops  had  died  of  the  plague,  and  of  the  remain- 
ing fifteen,  fourteen  refused  to  conform.  These 
fovirteen  Roman  Bishops,  who  had  illegally  dis- 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  159 

placed  the  English  Catholic  Bishops,  were  de- 
prived ;  and  so  only  one  Bishop  was  left  in  posses- 
sion of  his  see.  But  four  of  the  old  Bishops  whom 
Mary  had  turned  out  of  office,  Barlow,  Hodgkin, 
Coverdale,  and  Scory,  were  summoned,  and  con- 
secrated Parker  as  Archbishop  of  Canterbury, '  and 
the  other  sees  were  quickly  filled;  and  so  Mary's 
attempt  to  undo  the  work  of  the  Reformation  came 
to  nothing  beyond  creating  an  undying  hatred  of 
Roman  methods  and  Roman  persecutions,  among 
the  common  people. 

Only  192  out  of  9,000  clergy  refused  to  take 
the  oath  of  the  Queen's  supremacy;  and  when, 
later,  Elizabeth  was  invited  to  attend  the  Council 
of  Trent  as  a  Protestant,  she  resented  the  term  as 
applied  to  herself,  and  said  that  "an  invidious  dis- 
tinction is  made  between  me  and  such  other  Cath- 
olic Potentates  as  have  been  invited  to  this  Coun- 
cil." And  to  several  Roman  Catholic  princes,  she 
wrote:  "There  is  no  new  faith  propagated  in 
England,  no  religion  set  up,  but  that  which  was 
commanded  by  our  Saviour,  preached  by  the  prim- 
itive Church,  and  unanimously  approved  by  the 
Fathers  of  the  best  antiquity."  The  suspension  of 
intercommunion  was  brought  about  by  the  Pope, 
when,  despairing  of  regaining  control  of  the  Eng- 
lish Church,  he  ex-communicated  Elizabeth  in 
1569,  and  a  number  of  papists  withdrew  from  the 
old  Catholic  Church,  and  organized  the  Latin  or 
Roman  mission,  which  is  now  known  as  the  Roman 

*  See  Appendix  A. 


160  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

Catholic  Church  in  England,  and  which  has  no 
connection  with  the  pre-Refonnation  Church  of 
England  of  any  sort  or  description.  The  present 
Koman  Catholic  hierarchy  in  England  was  organ- 
ized in  1850,  with  Doctor  Wiseman  as  the  Cardinal 
Archbishop ;  and  not  until  comparatively  recently, 
did  the  new  Roman  Bishops  begin  to  use  the  old 
historic  names  for  their  dioceses. 

Many  Churchmen  fled  to  the  Continent  during 
Mary's  reign  to  escape  persecution,  and  were  there 
indoctrinated  with  Calvinism  and  Lutheranism ; 
and  returning  to  England  under  Elizabeth,  set 
themselves  in  opposition  to  the  Church  and  formed 
the  first  indeijendent  sect  about  the  year  1568. 
Many  of  these  independents  had  acquired  influ- 
ential office  in  Church  and  State,  and  then  began 
a  terrible  struggle  between  them  and  the  Church ; 
and  when  the  Presbyterians  got  the  upper  hand, 
they  tried  to  abolish  Episcopacy  by  law,  they 
turned  the  clergy  out  of  their  parishes,  made  it  a 
penal  offence  to  use  the  Prayer  Book,  thrust  their 
own  ministers  into  church  livings,  and  established 
the  Presbyterian  system  by  law.  But  the  Inde- 
pendents came  into  power  and  forced  the  Presby- 
terians to  retire.  With  Cromwell,  the  Indepen- 
dents were  supreme  in  authority,  and  the  insults, 
abuse  and  sufferings,  and  physical  violence  to 
which  the  English  clergy  were  subjected  are  almost 
beyond  belief.  But  when  the  kingdom  was  re- 
stored again  under  Charles  II.,  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land was  again  restored  to  its  rightful  position. 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  161 

James  II.  attempted  to  bring  the  Church  again 
under  Roman  obedience,  but  his  efforts  were 
brought  to  naught  by  the  rebellion  which  placed 
William  and  Mary  on  the  throne. 

]^o  doubt  in  the  changing  vicissitudes  of  post- 
Reformation  times,  when  the  Church  was  supreme 
one  moment,  and  trampled  under  foot  the  next,  it 
seems  difficult  to  feel  that  her  continuous  life  as 
an  organization  wsis  never  vitally  injured  or  de- 
stroyed; but  it  must  be  remembered  that  from 
M^hat  has  been  said  it  is  evident  that  through  all 
changes  the  ministerial  succession  of  her  apostolic 
Bishops  was  never  lost,  nor  did  she  ever  repudiate 
the  Catholic  Faith  as  contained  in  the  Catholic 
Creeds,  nor  did  she  cease  to  administer  Catholic 
sacraments,  or  to  claim  lawful  jurisdiction  in  Eng- 
land. Protestant  tyranny  in  the  Puritan  age  could 
no  more  destroy  her  corporate  identity,  than  could 
Roman  tyranny  in  the  Middle  Ages.  The  very 
fact  that  the  Church  of  England  has  suffered  such 
dreadful  abuse  at  the  hands  of  Protestants  and 
Romanists,  at  different  times,  would  seem  to  show 
that  she  cannot  be  either  Roman  or  Protestant ; 
and  that  she  is  a  power  which  must  be  feared  and 
demolished,  if  either  Protestantism  or  Romanism, 
is  to  prevail  in  England.  We  found  that  the 
Church  is  the  Body  of  Christ;  and  we  must  re- 
member that  Christ's  natural  Body  was  worn  and 
emaciated  with  suffering,  wounded  in  hands,  and 
feet,  and  side,  stained  with  filth  and  blood,  and 
racked  with  pain,  and  burning  with  fever,  stripped 


162  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

and  insulted  by  His  enemies;  yet  even  so  it  was 
none  the  less  His  Body,  the  adorable  Body  of  the 
Son  of  God. 

The  Lord  has  said,  "Remember  the  word  that 
I  said  imto  you.  The  servant  is  not  gi-eater  than 
his  Lord.  If  they  have  persecuted  Me,  they  will 
also  persecute  you."  And  so  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land regards  the  discipline  through  which  she  has 
gone,  as  a  pledge  of  discipleship,  and  also  as  a 
preparation  for  the  work  which  the  Lord  wills  she 
shall  do,  in  the  ages  yet  to  come. 


CHAPTER  XI 

THE  CATHOLIC  CHURCH  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES 

CHE  American  Church  was  founded  by  English 
colonists  who  were  members  of  the  Church  of 
England;  and  the  first  regular  colony  of  Church- 
men was  established  in  Virginia,  with  the  Eev. 
Eobert  Hunt,  Priest,  as  Chaplain.  They  landed 
in  Chesapeake  bay  in  April,  1607,  and  named  their 
settlement,  Jamestown.  Their  first  act  on  landing 
was  to  offer  a  prayer  of  thanksgiving;  and  the 
Holy  Eucharist  was  celebrated  for  the  first  time, 
in  a  tent,  June  21st,  1607.  Offerings  were  sent 
from  England  to  sujDport  these  Church  colonists ; 
and  from  time  to  time,  other  priests  emigrated 
and  shared  their  fate.  Many  of  the  colonists  were 
massacred  by  the  Indians,  but  still  the  colony  grew, 
and  each  group  of  Churchmen  constituted  a  repro- 
duction of  an  English  parish,  with  its  religion  es- 
tablished by  the  local  laws.  Other  Churchmen 
emigTated  to  'New  England ;  but  they  were  far  out- 
numbered by  the  Puritan  emigrants,  who  excluded 


164  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

tliem  from  the  rights  of  citizenship  and  persecuted 
them  in  maaiy  ways,  driving  many  of  them  out  of 
New  England,  so  that  in  1680  only  one  priest  was 
left;  but  later,  the  Church  was  planted  in  New 
England^  being  made  up  largely  from  converts  who 
became  such  after  careful  study  of  the  Church's 
claims,  and  went  to  England,  obtained  Holy  Or- 
ders, returned,  and  gathered  congregations  of 
Churchmen,  thus  forming  parishes  of  their  own. 
In  Maryland  in  1700  there  were  seven  clergymen ; 
and  in  both  Maryland  and  Virginia,  the  majority 
of  emigrants  were  Churchmen.  Before  the  Revo- 
lution, the  Church  was  established  by  law  and  was 
supported  by  a  general  tax,  which  of  course  made 
it  obnoxious  to  the  dissenters,  and  so  retarded  its 
growth. 

In  September,  1664,  an  expedition  of  the  Duke 
of  York  landed  in  what  is  now  New  York,  under 
the  command  of  Colonel  Nichols,  a  Churchman. 
Their  Chaplain  was  given  the  use  of  the  Dutch 
Church,  after  their  service  was  finished,  and  the 
Church  was  established  by  law  under  Governor 
Fletcher,  in  1692.  Trinity  parish  was  organized 
in  1697.  In  1700,  Christ  Church  was  organized 
in  Philadelphia  among  the  Quakers,  and  eventu- 
ally five  hundred  of  them  were  baptized.  In  Eng- 
land these  colonial  parishes  were  regarded  as  part 
of  the  Church  of  England,  and  in  1685  Compton, 
Bishop  of  London,  was  put  in  charge  of  them,  as 
a  part  of  his  diocese;  and  he  licensed  priests  to 
officiate  for  them.     These  parishes  were  subject  to 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  165 

the  law  of  the  English  Church,  and  were  supported 
largely  by  the  English  Society  for  the  Propagation 
of  the  Gospel,  which  sent  many  priests  to  America. 
An  increasing  sj)irit  of  restlessness  grew  up  at  the 
inconvenience  and  opposition  which  the  Colonial 
Churchmen  suffered  from  the  fact  that  they  were 
governed  by  British  authorities  beyond  the  sea ; 
and  it  was  felt  that  Bishops  must  be  obtained  from 
the  English  succession,  in  order  to  complete  the 
organization  of  the  Church  in  America.  Many 
attempts  were  made  to  obtain  episcopacy  from 
England;  but  the  Church  of  England  was  hamp- 
ered by  her  relation  to  the  State,  and  it  was  very 
difficult,  at  first,  to  get  the  necessary  royal  consent 
to  the  consecration  of  colonial  Bishops. 

In  America  the  Puritan  element  hated  the 
very  idea  of  Episcopacy,  as  representing  the  Eng- 
lish Church  and  State;  and  there  was  much  oppo- 
sition to  the  plan  of  obtaining  Bishops  for  the  col- 
onists. The  war  of  the  Revolution,  making  the  col- 
onists independent  of  the  English  government, 
was  felt  to  have  annulled  at  once  the  authority  of 
the  Bishop  of  London  over  Colonial  Churchmen ; 
and  the  immediate  result  was  that  Churchmen  in 
each  state  found  themselves  in  disorganized 
groups.  Before  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution, 
each  state  was  a  little  independent  nation ;  and  so 
its  Church  was  a  little  independent  national 
Church:  and  while  Colonial  Churchmen  were 
boimd  together  by  a  common  Faith,  Ministry,  and 
Sacraments,  and  were  governed  by  the  old  Church 


166  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

law,  their  organization  was  defective,  without 
Bishops. 

The  Revolution  cut  off  the  supply  of  clergy 
from  England,  and  the  Church  had  to  depend  on 
clergy  furnished  by  emigration,  and  on  those  lay- 
men who  went  back  to  England  to  obtain  Holy 
Orders.  Consequently  during  the  interval  before 
Bishops  were  consecrated  for  America,  the  Church 
suffered  much  inconvenience,  and  lost  many  mem- 
bers. 

Local  conventions  were  now  assembled,  to  com- 
plete the  organization  of  parishes  into  dioceses, 
and  to  obtain  Bishops  for  them.  In  Connecticut 
Doctor  Samuel  Seabury  was  elected  Bishop,  was 
sent  to  England,  and  was  consecrated  by  Scottish 
Bishops,  E^ovember  14th,  1784.  These  diocesan 
conventions  united  in  forming  the  General  Con- 
vention of  the  American  Church,  and  the  first 
General  Convention  was  called  to  procure  the  epis- 
copate, to  revise  the  Prayer  Book,  so  that  it  would 
conform  to  the  new  political  situation  in  which  the 
Church  found  herself,  and  to  organize  permanent 
union  between  all  Churchmen. 

Addresses  were  sent  to  the  Archbishops  of  Can- 
terbury and  York  and  the  Bishops  of  the  Church 
of  England,  requesting  that  they  consecrate  as 
Bishops  for  the  Church  in  America,  such  men  as 
American  Churchmen  might  elect ;  and  in  response 
to  this  request,  Doctor  William  White  of  Pennsyl- 
vania and  Doctor  Samuel  Provoost  of  ISTew  York 
were  consecrated  Bishops  at  Lambeth  Chapel  in 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  167 

London,  by  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  the 
Bishops  of  Bath-and- Wells  and  Peterborough  as- 
sisting, February  4th,  1787.  The  Convention  of 
1789  adopted  a  constitution  for  the  national 
Church,  and  the  Bishops  organized  as  a  House  of 
Bishops;  and  so  the  organization  of  the  Catholic 
Church  in  America  was  completed.  The  Conven- 
tion proceeded  to  revise  the  Prayer  Book.  James 
Madison  was  consecrated  Bishop  of  Virginia  at 
Lambeth  Chapel,  September  19th,  1790 ;  and  now 
that  the  American  Church  had  the  requisite  num- 
ber of  Bishops  of  her  own  to  consecrate  canon- 
ically,  John  Claggett  was  consecrated  Bishop  of 
Maryland  in  1792  by  Bishops  Provoost,  Seabury, 
White,  and  Madison,  and  this  was  the  first  conse- 
cration of  a  Catholic  Bishop  in  America,  for  the 
American  Church. 

From  this  point  to  the  present  time,  nothing 
has  occurred  which  can  be  said  in  any  way  to 
affect  the  continuity,  or  Catholic  character,  of  the 
American  Church.  She  is  to-day  in  full  and  open 
communion  with  the  Church  of  England,  and  in 
the  preface  to  her  Prayer  Book  asserts  that  she  is 
"far  from  intending  to  depart  from  the  Church  of 
England  in  any  essential  point  of  doctrine,  discip- 
line, or  worship,  or  further  than  local  circum- 
stances require."  Through  her  Bishops  she  in- 
herits authority  from  the  Lord  Christ,  to  admin- 
ister sacraments  and  discipline,  and  to  teach,  in 
His  name.  She  accepts  as  the  Catholic  Faith,  that 
doctrine  which  has  been  taught  everywhere,  by  the 


168  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

whole  Church,  from  the  beginning,  defined  bj  her 
general  councils,  expressed  in  the  Catholic  creeds, 
and  is  verified  bj  Holy  Scriptures,  as  interpreted 
by  the  ancient  Fathers. 


CHAPTER  XII 

PAPAL  SUPREMACY  AND  THE  HOLY  SCRIPTURES 

771  E  have  considered  the  Protestant  theory  of 
W  the  Church,  and  the  Catholic  theory,  and 
now  we  consider  the  Roman  Catholic  theory  of 
the  Church. 

However  complicated  the  controversy  with  the 
Roman  Church  may  at  first  seem  to  be,  yet  to  a 
Churchman  it  necessarily  reduces  itself  to  one 
or  two  points,  on  which  the  whole  question  turns. 
Determine  these,  and  you  have  the  key  to  the 
situation.  Neglect  these,  and  other  discussions 
must  still  leave  the  real  issue  unsettled.  Very 
often  the  claims  of  the  Roman  Church  are  met  by 
pointing  out  the  fact  that  she  teaches  erroneous 
doctrines;  or  has  committed  herself  to  what  is 
commonly  called  superstition;  and  no  doubt  in 
certain  points  of  doctrine,  the  Church  of  Rome 
has  varied  from  the  Catholic  Faith. 

But  after  all,  the  question  in  regard  to  Rome 
from  the  standpoint  of  a   Catholic  Churchman, 


170  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

is  practically  the  same  one  that  is  at  the  bottom 
of  the  controversy  with  Protestants;  namely,  the 
question  of  authority;  and  it  is  of  the  greatest 
possible  importance  to  determine  exactly  what  is 
the  decisive  issue,  before  we  proceed  with  the  argu- 
ment. 

The  Roman  Catholic  theory  of  the  organization 
and  authority  of  the  Church,  may  be  stated  some- 
what as  follows:  The  Lord  Jesus  Christ  founded 
the  Catholic  Church,  and  appointed  St.  Peter  to 
be  the  head  of  the  Church,  giving  him  supreme 
authority,  which  he  was  to  transmit  to  the  Popes 
of  Rome  as  his  successors,  who  were  to  be  the 
supreme  rulers  of  the  Church;  and  were  to  be  so 
guided  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  in  their  formal,  ex 
cathedra  definitions  of  matters  which  concern 
Faith  and  Morals,  that  such  definitions  should  be 
infallible  and  irreformable.  It  logically  follows, 
that  obedience  to  the  Pope  of  Rome  as  head  of  the 
Church,  is  the  condition  of  Catholic  communion; 
and  that  the  acceptance  of  his  definitions  is  the 
only  ground  of  certitude,  in  matters  of  faith. 

Of  course  it  must  readily  be  seen,  that  if  Papal 
Supremacy  is  the  divinely  appointed  centre  of 
unity,  then  all  Anglo-Catholics,  and  all  Greek 
Catholics,  are  out  of  the  Church  (because  they 
refuse  to  submit  to  the  Roman  Pontiff),  no  matter 
how  orthodox  they  may  happen  to  be  in  doctrinal 
matters;  and  if  the  Pope  is  guided  by  the  Holy 
Ghost,  in  his  formal  definitions  of  questions  which 
concern  faith  and  morals,  then  Rome's  doctrine 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  171 

must  be  right,  and  Anglo-Catholics  must  be  wrong ; 
no  matter  how  scriptural  and  primitive  their  doc- 
trine may  seem  to  be.  So  that  really  we  are  con- 
cerned, not  primarily  with  details  of  doctrine,  but 
with  two,  and  only  two,  questions:  namely,  the 
claim  of  Papal  Supremacy,  and  the  claim  of  Papal 
Infallibility.  If  these  two  claims  are  well  founded, 
then  the  Anglo-Catholic  Church  has  no  ground 
whatever  on  which  to  base  any  claim,  and  is 
simply  a  schism,  or  Protestant  sect.  But  if  it 
happens  that  these  two  claims  are  unhistoric,  un- 
catholic,  and  unscriptural,  then  certainly  they  con- 
stitute a  very  dreadful  distortion  of  the  Catholic 
Faith,  and  have  proved  to  be  the  most  potent  cause 
of  division  among  Christians ;  and  Anglo-Catholics 
cannot  possibly  submit  to  them,  no  matter  whether 
Rome's  doctrinal  teaching,  in  certain  other  re- 
spects, is  true  or  false. 

Every  intelligent  Churchman  must  at  once 
admit,  that  there  are  certain  features  of  the  Roman 
Church  which,  taken  by  themselves,  are  admir- 
able; and  which,  to  certain  impressionable  tem- 
peraments, prove  so  attractive  that  they  blind  the 
mind  to  the  real,  logical  issue,  and  prejudice  the 
controversy  much  in  Rome's  favor.  For  example : 
the  effectiveness,  discipline,  superficial  unity,  and 
superior  numbers  of  Rome's  organization  are  al- 
ways impressive;  and  her  unity  of  belief  in  cer- 
tain Catholic  doctrines  is  very  striking.  That  in 
a  limited  number  of  cases,  and  under  certain  cir- 
cumstances, she  develops  and  trains  a  very  high 


172  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

type  of  saintliness,  is  also  true;  and  when  these 
characteristics  are  cleverly  contrasted  with  certain 
superficial  defects  in  the  local  working  of  the 
Anglo-Catholic  system,  doubtless  the  comparison 
is  sometimes  in  Rome's  favor. 

But  we  must  insist  that  after  all  such  com- 
j)arison  does  not  touch  the  root  of  the  controversy 
between  Anglicans  and  Romans.  It  is  possible 
for  Rome  to  have  all  these  impressive  features, 
which  are  legitimate  characteristics  of  the  true 
Church,  and  yet  be  radically  ^vi'ong  in  her  theory 
of  organization  and  her  method  of  determining 
what  is  the  truth,  in  which  she  is  distinctively 
Roman:  and  if  she  is  thus  wrong  in  the  essential 
points  which  make  her  what  she  is,  then  the  defect 
IS  vital,  and  all  other  considerations  are  mere  side 
issues.  Mere  superiority  of  numbers,  or  cleverness 
and  effectiveness  of  organization,  cannot  blind  us 
to  the  fact,  that  such  organization  is  built  on  a 
false  foundation;  and  an  impressive  unity  of  be- 
lief signifies  nothing,  if  such  unity  is  produced  at 
the  expense  of  truth,  and  happens  to  be  out  of 
unity  with  the  Catholic  Faith  of  the  past. 

On  the  other  hand,  it  is  possible  for  the  An- 
glican Church  to  have  many  superficial  defects 
which  are  not  vital,  and  which  correct  themslves 
as  time  goes  on,  and  yet  be  radically  right  in  her 
theory  of  organization,  and  in  her  method  of  de- 
termining what  is  the  Catholic  Faith,  in  which  she 
is  distinctively  Catholic.  To  use  a  medical  expres- 
sion, Anglican  difficulties  are  functional,  and  can 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  173 

be  remedied ;  while  Roman  difficulties  are  organic, 
and  are  incurable. 

So,  as  we  said,  the  whole  question  reduces  itself 
to  this:  Has  the  Pope  of  Rome  divine  authority 
to  claim  our  obedience  as  head  of  the  Church,  and 
has  he  the  right  to  claim  supernatural  guidance, 
in  formally  defining  matters  which  concern  faith 
and  morals  ?  In  other  words,  the  issue  between 
Anglo-Catholics  and  Roman  Catholics,  turns  on 
the  questions  of  papal  supremacy  and  papal  in- 
fallibility. The  only  way  these  questions  can  be 
settled  is  by  an  appeal  to  the  Holy  Scriptures  and 
to  history ;  notwithstanding  the  fact,  that  Cardinal 
Manning  in  his  book  The  Tempor-al  Mission  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  said  (page  226)  that  an  "appeal  to 
antiquity  is  both  a  treason  and  a  heresy."  We 
cannot  admit  that  "history,  and  antiquity,  and 
facts,  as  they  are  called,  of  the  past,  vanish  before 
the  presence  of  an  order  of  facts  which  are  divine 
.  .  .  namely,  the  unity,  and  perpetuity,  and 
infallibility  of  the  Church  of  God"  (page  204). 
On  the  contrary,  we  claim  that  just  because  the 
Catholic  Church  is  one,  perpetual,  and  infallible, 
she  cannot  cut  herself  off  from  history,  antiquity, 
and  facts  of  the  past;  nor  can  she  teach  as  of 
authority  in  one  age,  that  which  was  entirely  un- 
known to  the  Catholic  Faith  of  primitive  ages.  We 
claim  that  the  strength  of  the  Anglican  position 
lies  just  in  this  fact :  that  we  appeal  constantly  to 
history  and  the  Holy  Scriptures,  for  the  verifica- 
tion of  Catholic  truth. 


174  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

To  start  with,  we  must  bear  in  mind  that  the 
authority  of  the  papacy  is  supposed  to  be  derived 
from  St.  Peter,  on  the  assumption  that  our  Lord 
appointed  St.  Peter  the  supreme  head  of  the 
Church,  with  authority  to  transmit  such  headship 
to  the  Bishops  of  Eome.  If  St.  Peter  was  not  the 
head  of  the  Church  by  divine  appointment,  then 
the  whole  fabric  of  the  papal  claims  falls  to  the 
ground;  for  confessedly,  there  is  no  other  source 
from  which  the  Bishops  of  Pome  could  receive 
supreme  authority.  The  position  of  St.  Peter  in 
the  Apostolic  college  is  the  first  issue  by  which 
the  whole  Roman  system  stands  or  falls. 

There  cannot  be  any  doubt  that  St.  Peter  en- 
joyed a  certain  preeminence  and  leadership  among 
the  Apostles,  for  he  appears  in  Holy  Scriptures 
first  on  the  list  of  Apostles,  first  in  action,  and 
first  in  confession  of  the  faith.  But  the  assump- 
tion which  Anglicans  deny,  is  that  he  was  given 
any  sort  of  official  authority  over  the  other  Apos- 
tles, which  made  them  subject  to  him,  or  which  he 
could  transmit  to  any  one  else. 

Of  course  it  is  well  known  that  the  classic  text 
of  Holy  Scripture  which  Romans  quote  as  substan- 
tiating their  claims,  is  St.  Matthew  xvi.  18-19. 
St.  Peter  had  made  the  first  great  open  confession 
of  faith  in  the  fact  of  the  Incarnation:  "Thou 
art  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  Living  God."  And 
our  Lord  replies,  "I  say  also  unto  thee,  that  thou 
art  Peter;  and  upon  this  rock  I  will  build  My 
Church,  and  the  gates  of  Hades  shall  not  prevail 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  175 

against  it.  I  will  give  unto  thee  the  keys  of  the 
kingdom  of  heaven;  and  whatsoever  thou  shalt 
bind  on  earth  shall  be  bound  in  heaven ;  and  what- 
soever thou  shalt  loose  on  earth  shall  be  loosed  in 
heaven." 

What,  then,  is  this  rock,  on  which  the  Church 
is  built  ?  Is  it  St.  Peter  himself,  or  St.  Peter's 
confession  of  our  Lord's  divinity,  or  is  it  Christ's 
adorable  Person?  If  we  turn  to  the  Fathers  to 
discover  what  was  the  primitive  patristic  inter- 
pretation, a  careful  analysis  of  their  testimony, 
seems  to  give  this  result:  they  do  not  agree  on 
any  one  of  the  three  interpretations,  some  giving 
one  and  some  another;  and  so  there  has  been  no 
fixed  tradition  in  the  Church,  as  to  what  our  Lord 
meant  hy  the  Rock.  But  one  thing  is  certain :  that 
the  Fathers  never  believed,  and  never  taught,  that 
St.  Peter  was  the  Rock  in  any  sense  which  ex- 
cluded the  other  Apostles.  But  suppose  that  our 
Lord  did  pronounce  St.  Peter  to  be  the  rock  on 
which  He  would  build  His  Church.  The  question 
comes  up.  Is  the  Lord  dealing  with  St.  Peter  as 
distinct  from  the  other  Apostles,  and  as  superior 
to  them,  or  merely  as  their  representative  ? 

Now  we  find  that  our  Lord  subsequently  gave 
to  all  the  Apostles,  precisely  this  same  commission 
to  bind  and  loose  which  He  promised  to  St.  Peter, 
and  so  it  could  not  be  exclusively  Peter's  preroga- 
tive. Notice  that  our  Lord's  word  to  St.  Peter  is 
a  promise  to  give,  not  the  actual  giving ;  and  when 
our  Lord's  commission  is  actually  conferred,  after 


176  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

His  resurrection,  it  is  given  alike  to  all  the  twelve, 
and  there  is  no  special  commission  given  to  St. 
Peter.  We  read  that  the  New  Jerusalem,  the 
Church,  is  built  not  on  one,  but  on  twelve  founda- 
tion stones.  St.  Peter  seems  to  have  been  the  rep- 
resentative leader  among  the  Apostles,  and  as  such, 
to  have  been  addressed  bj  our  Lord:  but  there  is 
not  one  word  to  indicate  that  he  was  superior  in 
office  and  authority,  by  divine  appointment. 

We  shall  find  later,  that  the  position  of  St. 
John,  St.  Paul,  and  St.  James,  in  the  Church,  is 
absolutely  inconsistent  with  the  assumption  that 
St.  Peter  is  the  head  of  the  Church  and  the  source 
of  authority.  Roman  Catholics  profess  to  inter- 
pret Scripture  according  to  "the  unanimous  con- 
sent of  the  Fathers"  (Creed  of  Pius  IV.),  but  cer- 
tainly no  such  consensus  can  be  claimed  for  the 
modern  Roman  interpretation  of  our  Lord's  words 
to  St.  Peter. 

The  second  text  quoted  in  support  of  papal 
claims,  is  St.  Luke  xxii.  32.  Our  Lord's  words  to 
St.  Peter,  "I  made  supplication  for  thee,  that  thy 
faith  fail  not;  and  do  thou,  when  once  thou  hast 
turned  again,  stablish  thy  brethren."  But,  as  St. 
Chrysostom  says,  our  Lord  thus  spoke  to  St.  Peter 
because  of  his  presumption,  to  rebuke  and  warn 
him ;  and  there  is  nothing  whatever  in  our  Lord's 
words  to  imply  that  St.  Peter  is  head  of  the 
Church.  The  third  text  which  Roman  Catholics 
quote  in  support  of  papal  claims,  is  St.  John  xxi. 
16,  where  our  Lord  says  to  St.  Peter,  "Simon,  son 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  177 

of  Jonas,  lovest  thou  Me  ?  Feed  My  sheep/'  and 
repeats  the  expression  three  times.  Romans  claim 
that  this  is  a  special  pastoral  commission  given  to 
St.  Peter  by  our  Lord,  to  rule  over  His  flock.  But 
certainly  the  words  suggest  to  us  at  once,  as  they 
did  to  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  and  Augustine,  and 
other  Fathers,  a  threefold  restoration  of  St.  Peter 
to  our  Lord's  favor,  after  his  threefold  denial  of 
Him;  and  the  words  have  no  official  significance- 
whatever. 

If  St.  Peter  was  the  divinely  appointed  head  of 
the  Church,  certainly  that  fact  must  appear  in  St. 
Peter's  relation  to  the  other  Apostles.  But  so  far 
as  Scriptural  hints,  without  historical  verification 
go,  it  would  be  vastly  easier  to  prove  that  either 
St.  John,  or  St.  Paul,  or  St.  James,  was  intended 
to  be  the  ofiicial  head  of  the  Church,  than  that  St.. 
Peter  was.  For  example,  take  the  case  of  St.  John. 
He  was  the  "beloved  disciple"  of  our  Lord.  He 
alone  was  faithful  to  the  end,  and  was  present  at 
the  Crucifixion.  To  him  the  Lord  commits  the 
care  of  the  Blessed  Virgin.  He  witnessed  the 
Blood  and  Water  that  flowed  from  our  Lord's  side, 
as  symbols  of  the  two  greater  sacraments.  He  was 
the  only  Apostle  to  outlive  the  destruction  of  Je- 
rusalem. Was  this  not  providential,  in  that  he 
was  to  be  the  head  of  the  Church  ?  He  alone 
beheld  the  glorified  vision  of  Christ,  and  to  him 
Christ  gives  His  messages  to  the  seven  Churches. 
He  sanctioned  and  authenticated  the  first  three 
Gospels,  and  wrote  the  fourth  as  supplementary. 


178  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

He  probably  arranged  the  system  of  diocesan  epis- 
copacy. Our  Lord  said  of  him,  "If  I  will  that  he 
tarry  till  I  come"  (John  xxi.  22).  Now  of  course 
St.  John  could  not  live  always,  and  so  it  would 
appear  that  only  by  living  in  the  persons  of  his 
successors,  could  he  thus  tarry  till  the  Lord  should 
come,  at  the  judgment.    So  much  for  St.  John. 

The  case  of  St,  Paul  is  even  better.  St.  Paul 
received  neither  his  doctrine,  nor  his  commission, 
from  Peter,  but  from  our  Lord  Himself,  who  ap- 
peared to  him  specially  for  the  purpose.  St.  Paul 
rebuked  St.  Peter  openly,  as  he  says,  "I  resisted 
him  to  the  face"  (Gal.  ii.  11).  If  St.  Peter  were 
the  supreme,  infallible  head  of  the  Church,  he 
might  thus  rebuke  St.  Paul,  but  certainly  St. 
Paul  would  not  so  rebuke  St.  Peter.  Then  St. 
Paul  says,  "That  which  presseth  upon  me  daily, 
anxiety  for  all  the  Churches"  (II.  Cor.  xi.  28). 
"So  I  ordain  in  all  the  Churches"  (I.Cor.  vii.  17). 
'Now  if  St.  Peter  had  said  this,  would  we  ever 
have  heard  the  last  of  it  from  the  Roman  Cath- 
olics? Surely  "anxiety  for  all  the  Churches," 
ought  to  be  on  the  shoulders  of  the  one  supreme, 
infallible  head.  Then  to  St.  Paul  was  committed 
the  exclusive  care  of  the  Gentile  converts,  while  St. 
Peter  was  restricted  to  the  Jews.  But  surely  all 
converts  ought  to  be  subject  to  the  authority  of  the 
one  head  of  the  Church.  You  cannot  imagine  the 
Pope  to-day  dividing  his  jurisdiction  with  any- 
body. Then  St.  Paul  asserts,  "In  nothing  was  I 
behind  the  very  chiefest  Apostles"  (II.  Cor.  xii. 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  179 

11).  But  St.  Paul  was  certainly  a  very  long  way 
behind  St.  Peter,  in  the  matter  of  rank  and  author- 
ity, if  St.  Peter  were  the  head  of  the  Church.  So 
as  a  simple  matter  of  fact,  St.  Paul  is  far  more 
prominent  in  some  ways,  than  St.  Peter. 

A  very  good  case  can  also  be  made  out  for  St. 
James  as  the  head  of  the  Church.  He  was  un- 
questionably the  first  Bishop  of  Jerusalem,  which 
was  the  mother  of  all  Christian  Churches.  St. 
James  perhaps  presided  at  the  First  Council  of 
the  whole  Church  held  at  Jerusalem.  If  St.  Peter 
were  the  head  of  the  Church,  he  ought  to  have  been 
Bishop  of  the  mother  Church.  When  St.  Paul 
went  up  to  the  city  to  attend  the  council,  he  speaks 
of  James  first  among  those  "who  were  reputed  to 
be  pillars"  (Gal.  ii.  9).  Then  many  years  after- 
ward, when  St.  Paul,  with  others,  went  back  to 
Jerusalem,  St.  Luke  says,  "The  day  following, 
Paul  went  in  with  us  unto  James,  and  all  the 
presbyters  were  present."  When  St.  Peter  was 
released  from  prison,  he  ordered  the  news  to  be 
taken  to  James,  saying,  "Go  show  these  things  to 
James,"  as  if  all  matters  of  interest  had  to  be  re- 
ported to  him,  as  to  one  in  authority.  ^Vhy,  then, 
is  not  the  Bishop  of  the  mother  Church  of  Jeru- 
salem, to-day  the  head  of  the  Church,  as  successor 
of  St.  James? 

Moreover,  when  converts  were  to  be  confirmed, 
we  read  that  "the  Apostles  which  were  at  Jeru- 
salem sent  Peter  and  John"  (Acts  viii.  _±)  to 
Samaria  to  administer  Confirmation  by  laying  on 


180  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

of  their  hands.  But  surely  the  one  in  supreme 
authority  always  sends  his  inferiors;  and  if  St. 
Peter  were  the  head  of  the  Church,  why  did  he  not 
send  the  Apostles,  instead  of  their  sending  him? 
Imagine,  if  you  can,  a  modern  Pope  being  sent  by 
the  college  of  Cardinals  at  Pome,  to  administer 
Confirmation  in  Florence,  or  Naples,  or  to  do  any- 
thing else !  Then  we  read  that  those  who  said, 
"I  am  of  Cephas"  (I.  Cor.  i.  12)  (that  is,  Peter) 
were  rebuked,  as  sanctioning  a  spirit  of  division. 
But  if  St.  Peter  were  the  supreme  head  of  the 
Church,  the  representative  of  its  unity,  then  cer- 
tainly it  would  be  a  most  natural  expression  of 
loyalty,  to  say  just  this  very  thing;  "I  am  of 
Peter." 

Beside  all  this,  we  must  remember  that  the 
Book  of  the  Acts  of  the  Holy  Apostles  is  a  book  of 
Church  history,  written  under  the  guidance  of  the 
Holy  Spirit;  and  that  it  covers  the  period  when 
St.  Peter  must  have  assumed  his  position  as  head 
of  the  Church,  and  begun  to  exercise  his  authority. 
ISTow  there  is  not  one  single  word  in  the  Book  of 
the  Acts,  which  even  remotely  hints  at  St.  Peter's 
headship;  and  as  we  have  found,  there  is  much 
that  would  seem  to  contradict  it.  If  the  Lord 
meant  that  all  men  should  recognize  St.  Peter's 
authority  as  supreme  spiritual  Pope  of  the  Church, 
so  that  to  refuse  obedience  to  him  and  his  succes- 
sors was  equivalent  to  excommunication  and  per- 
iled the  salvation  of  the  soul,  surely  He  would 
have  had  the  fact  so  plainly  written  out  in  Scrip- 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  181 

ture,  that  there  could  be  no  doubt  about  it;  or  at 
least  it  would  have  been  so  plainly  taught  as  to  be 
unmistakable.  The  simple  fact  of  the  case  is,  that 
not  only  is  there  no  adequate  evidence  in  Scripture 
to  support  the  claim  of  St.  Peter's  spiritual  head- 
ship of  the  Church,  but  there  is  much  that  is  hope- 
lessly inexplicable  on  the  supposition  that  our  Lord 
gave  him  any  such  authority. 


CHAPTER  XIII 

THE  GKOWTH  OF  PAPAL  CLAIMS 

TIST  the  last  chapter,  we  found  that  while  St.  Peter 
doubtless  occupied  a  position  of  "first  among 
equals"  in  the  Apostolic  college,  yet  there  is  no 
scriptural  evidence  that  our  Lord  conferred  upon 
him  any  official  authority,  which  was  not  also  con- 
ferred on  the  other  Apostles ;  or  any  personal  pre- 
rogatives which  he  could  transmit  (as  head  of  the 
Church)  to  the  Bishops  of  Rome.  To  make  good 
the  papal  claims,  it  would  be  necessary  to  show 
that  St.  Peter  not  only  possessed  supreme  author- 
ity, but  that  he  was  intended  to  transmit  such 
authority  to  the  Bishops  of  the  Roman  See,  to  be 
held  and  exercised  by  them  as  a  perpetual  ruling 
order  in  the  Church. 

!N^ow  we  must  answer  a  question  which  natur- 
ally presents  itself,  just  at  this  point:  If  the 
papacy  was  not  of  divine  origin,  not  an  original 
and  essential  part  of  the  apostolic  organization, 
how  did  the  Popes  of  Rome  acquire  such  enormous 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  183 

power,  as  they  unquestionably  have  exercised 
through  many  centuries  ? 

The  point  on  which  the  whole  position  of  the 
Patriarchal  See  of  Rome  depends,  is  not  its  su- 
premacy by  divine  appointment,  but  its  close  asso- 
ciation with  the  imperial  city,  and  its  intimate 
alliance  with  the  Roman  Empire,  through  which 
alliance  it  acquired  its  power  and  its  prestige. 

To  start  with,  we  must  be  careful  not  to  be 
misled  by  the  use  of  names,  phrases,  and  expres- 
sions, which  meant  one  thing  in  the  third  and 
fourth  centuries,  and  mean  quite  a  different  thing 
in  the  mouths  of  modern  Roman  Catholics,  in  the 
present  century.  Churchmen  in  early  days  were 
quite  free  to  express  their  reverence  for  the  or- 
thodoxy, learning,  and  ecclesiastical  preeminence 
of  the  Bishops  of  Rome ;  and  to  acknowledge  them 
as  being  first  among  equals ;  but  such  complimen- 
tary expressions  when  carefully  analyzed,  are  very 
far  from  an  acknowledgment  of  the  supremacy  of 
office  and  authority,  which  the  Popes  of  Rome  sub- 
sequently claimed  for  themselves.  The  very  name 
Pope  simply  means  Father;  and  all  the  great  Pa- 
triarchs were  called  Popes ;  and  the  parish  priests 
of  the  Greek  Church  are  called  Popes  to  this  day. 

In  order  to  understand  how  Rome  acquired 
her  power,  and  the  gTowth  of  the  papal  claims,  it 
is  first  of  all  necessary  to  consider  for  a  moment, 
the  organization  of  the  post- Apostolic  Church ;  and 
we  will  find  this  to  be  true :  that,  while  in  Apostolic 
times  there  were  only  three  orders  of  the  ministry. 


184  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

and  all  Bishops  were  equal  in  spiritual  authority, 
still,  after  the  Apostolic  age,  the  Church  found  it 
advisable  as  she  extended  over  the  world,  to  arrange 
a  more  complicated  system  of  government  than  was 
at  first  necessary,  and  to  yield  to  certain  Bishops, 
by  reason  of  the  prominence  of  their  sees,  certain 
authority  over  other  Bishops,  for  executive  pur- 
poses and  for  the  maintenance  of  discipline. 

The  important  point  to  be  remembered  is,  that 
in  thus  elaborating  her  own  system,  the  Church 
followed  the  lead  and  structure  of  the  civil  gov- 
ernment, the  Roman  Empire,  which  ruled  the 
world.  For  example:  the  dignity  of  any  individ- 
ual Bishop  was  largely  determined  by  the  polit- 
ical prominence  of  the  city  of  which  he  was  the 
Bishop;  its  political,  commercial,  and  literary 
prestige.  These  important  sees  were  generally 
filled  by  men  of  ability,  and  it  was  natural  that 
the  Bishops  of  the  smaller  cities,  should  defer  to 
them,  and  consult  them,  especially  as  the  smaller 
cities  were  first  evangelized  from  the  large  cities ; 
and  so  the  humbler  Bishop  would  look  up  to  the 
Bishop  of  the  greater  city,  as  being  in  a  sense  his 
Father,  and  superior  in  prominence,  if  not  in  ac- 
tual authority.  Thus  developed  the  Provincial 
System,  by  which  the  Bishops  of  a  certain  district 
would  group  themselves  together  under  the  head- 
ship of  the  Bishop  of  the  largest  city  of  that  dis- 
trict, who  would  be  called  the  Metropolitan,  that 
is,  the  Bishop  of  the  Chief  City.  ISTaturally  he 
would  preside  at  the  councils  of  the  Bishops  of 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  185 

that  district,  would  call  its  meetings,  and  consent 
to  ordination  or  consecration  of  other  Bishops,  and 
would  act  as  the  consecrator.  The  Metropolitan 
Bishop  would  thus  be  first  among  equals.  Then 
the  Church  further  elaborated  its  organization  to 
meet  new  needs  and  more  complicated  issues,  bj 
grouping  these  Metropolitan  Bishops  together  un- 
der one  presiding  officer,  who  was  called  a  Pa- 
triarch; and  the  group  of  Provinces  under  his 
oversight  was  called  a  Patriarchate.  Thus,  the 
whole  Catholic  Church  was  divided  into  five  great 
Patriarchates,  whose  patriarchal  Bishops  resided 
at  Rome,  Antioch,  Alexandria,  Jerusalem,  and, 
last  of  all,  Constantinople,  when  the  seat  of  the 
Roman  government  was  removed  to  that  city. 
These  cities  were  the  five  gi'eat  cities  of  the  Chris- 
tian world;  and  the  sees  of  bishoprics  in  four  of 
them,  Rome,  Antioch,  Alexandria,  and  Jerusalem, 
had  been  founded  by  St.  Peter,  St.  Paul,  St. 
Mark,  and  St.  James,  and  so  were  regarded  with 
special  veneration. 

As  time  went  on,  it  was  necessary  (or  at  least 
natural)  that  even  among  these  five  patriarchal 
Bishops  there  should  be  some  order  of  precedence ; 
and  what  more  natural  than  that  the  Bishop  of 
the  most  conspicuous  diocese  in  the  ruling  city  of 
the  whole  Christian  world,  should  be  granted  a 
primacy  of  honor,  or  rank,  while  it  was  distinctly 
understood,  that  as  a  Bishop  exercising  spiritual 
authority,  he  Was  superior  to  none  ?  That  that 
was  the  true  explanation  of  the  preeminence  of  the 


186  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

Eoman  Bishop,  we  know  from  the  twenty-eighth 
canon  of  the  Fourth  General  Council,  that  of 
Chalcedon,  A.D.  451,  which  reads: 

''We,  following  in  all  things  the  decisions  of 
the  Holy  Fathers,  and  acknowledging  the  canon 
of  the  150  most  religious  Bishops  which  has  just 
been  read,  do  also  determine  and  decree  the  same 
things  respecting  the  privileges  of  the  most  holy 
city  of  Constantinople,  which  is  New  Rome.  For 
the  Fathers  properly  gave  the  Primacy  to  the 
throne  of  the  elder  Rome,  because  it  was  the  Im- 
j)erial  city;  and  the  150  most  religious  Bishops, 
being  moved  with  the  same  intention,  gave  equal 
privileges  to  the  most  holy  throne  of  iSTew  Rome, 
judging,  with  reason,  that  the  city  which  was  hon- 
ored with  the  sovereignty,  and  the  senate,  and 
which  enjoyed  equal  privileges  with  the  elder  royal 
Rome,  should  also  be  magnified  like  her  in  ecclesi- 
astical matters ;  being  the  second  after  her."  This 
canon,  notwithstanding  the  protest  of  the  Roman 
delegates,  was  adopted  by  the  Council. 

]!^otice  well  the  reason  assigned  for  Rome's 
prominence.  It  was  not  that  the  Bishop  of  Rome 
was  the  divinely  appointed  head  and  ruler  of  the 
Church,  but  that  the  Bishop  of  Rome  was  the 
Bishop  of  the  Imperial  city,  the  head  of  the 
Roman  Empire;  the  most  conspicuous  Bishop  of 
the  Church.  ]^otice  also,  that  "if  the  Fathers 
bestowed  precedency  on  the  Chair  of  old  Rome," 
certainly  it  was  not  originally  "bestowed"  by  the 
Lord  Christ.     Then  Constantinople  having  come 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  187 

into  prominence  as  the  seat  of  the  Roman  govern- 
ment, we  find  that  the  Council,  "moved  by  the 
same  consideration,  awarded  equal  precedence  to 
the  most  holy  throne  of  new  Rome,"  that  is,  Con- 
stantinople; and  Jerusalem,  though  the  oldest 
Church  of  all,  "the  Mother  of  all  Churches," 
which  was  founded  by  St.  James,  was  assigned 
the  lowest  in  rank  of  the  five  patriarchates;  be- 
cause, as  a  city,  Jerusalem  was  of  so  little  political 
prominence. 

Notice  that  the  Church  still  held  that  by  divine 
appointment,  all  Bishops  were  of  equal  authority ; 
and  the  arrangement  of  diocesan  Bishops  under 
metropolitan  Bishops,  and  metropolitan  Bishops 
under  patriarchal  Bishops,  was  wholly  a  matter  of 
ecclesiastical  concession  for  executive  purposes; 
and  the  order  of  precedence  among  patriarchal 
Bishops  was  determined  incidentally,  by  the  prom- 
inence of  the  great  cities  in  which  the  Bishops 
lived. 

We  learn  from  the  historian  Rufinus,  that  the 
Patriarch  of  Rome's  original  authority,  was  lim- 
ited to  ten  provinces  in  central  and  southern  Italy, 
with  the  islands  of  Sicily,  Sardinia,  and  Corsica, 
and  that  down  to  the  Council  of  Antioch  in  341, 
the  system  of  jurisdiction  was  complete  within 
each  province  for  itself;  and  beyond  it  there  was 
no  appeal,  except  to  a  general  council  of  the  whole 
Church.  The  eighth  canon  of  Ephesus  reads: 
"1^0  Bishop  shall  interfere  in  other  provinces, 
which  have  not  been  from  the  very  first  under  him- 


188  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

self  and  his  predecessors.  But  if  any  one  have 
taken  a  province,  or  caused  it  to  be  subject  to  him 
through  compulsion,  he  must  restore  it." 

It  was  not  unnatural,  that  inasmuch  as  the 
Church  had  developed  its  executive  organization, 
so  far,  largely  along  the  lines  of  the  civil  govern- 
ment, the  attempt  should  be  made  to  carry  the  idea 
of  imperial  centralization  to  its  logical  issue ;  and 
so  to  invest  the  most  conspicuous  Patriarch  with 
sovereign  power  over  the  whole  Church,  and  thus 
transfer  the  idea  of  empire  from  the  State,  to  the 
Church.  But  it  is  a  curious  fact,  that  the  first 
Bishop  to  call  himself  "universal  Bishop"  was  not 
the  Pope  of  Rome,  but  John,  Pope  of  Constan- 
tinople, who  in  589  assumed  the  title  of  universal 
Bishop.  Whatever  claims  he  made  for  his  see  as 
inheriting  power  from  St.  Peter,  Pope  Gregory 
the  Great  protested  against  any  one  assuming  this 
title.  He  wrote  to  the  Emperor,  "I  confidently 
affirm  that  whosoever  calls  himself,  or  desires  him- 
self to  be  called,  universal  priest,  is  in  his  pride 
going  before  Antichrist ;  because  through  pride,  he 
prefers  himself  to  the  rest."  To  the  Patriarchs  of 
Antioch  and  Alexandria,  Gregory  wrote:  "This 
name.  Universal  Pontiff,  was  offered  during  the 
Holy  Synod  of  Chalcedon  to  the  Pontiff  of  the 
Apostolic  See,  a  post  which  by  God's  providence  I 
fill.    But  no  one  of  my  predecessors  consented 

TO  USE  so  profane  A  TERM,  BECAUSE  PLAINLY,  IF 

A  SINGLE  Patriarch  is  called  universal,  the 

NAME    OF    PATRIARCH    IS    TAKEN    FROM    ALL    THE 


-  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  189 

BEST."  To  John  of  Constantinople,  Gregory  wrote : 
"The  SOLE  Head  of  the  Univeesal  Chukch  is 
Christ."  Notice  that  the  Gregory  who  thus  writes, 
is  the  same  Pope  who  sent  Augustine  to  Britain  to 
convert  the  Saxons. 

So  for  many  centuries,  there  was  constant 
rivalry  between  Rome  and  Constantinople  as  to 
which  should  be  the  greater,  until  the  ninth  cen- 
tury, when  Charlemagne  established  his  empire, 
and  thus  the  weight  of  his  enormous  influence  was 
thrown  on  Rome's  side,  and  her  claims  were  ad- 
vanced. The  idea  of  imperial  centralization  was 
constantly  growing  in  the  Churches  under  papal 
obedience,  until  imder  Hildebrand  it  culminated 
in  the  assumption  that  the  Pope  was  the  auto- 
cratic ruler  of  nations  as  well  as  of  the  Church, 
and  had  the  right  to  depose  kings,  and  to  absolve 
subjects  from  their  allegiance. 

It  was  natural  that  minor  Bishops  should  go 
to  Rome  and  consult  the  learned  and  conspicuous 
Bishop  of  the  Imperial  city,  about  disputed  mat- 
ters ;  and  the  Popes,  taking  advantage  of  this  grow- 
ing custom,  began  to  claim  an  official  right  to  hear 
appeals  from  local  ecclesiastical  courts;  and  this 
placed  great  power  in  their  hands. 

We  have  already  seen  how  the  first  appeal  to 
Rome  in  the  Church  of  England,  by  Wilfrid,  from 
the  ruling  of  Theodore,  Archbishop  of  Canterbury, 
was  ignored  by  the  Archbishop,  and  how  the  appel- 
lant was  punished  and  exiled  for  his  disloyalty; 
and  the  question  is,  not  whether  appeals  were  made 


190  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

in  early  days  to  Rome  for  the  settlement  of  dis- 
putes, but  on  ivhat  ground  they  were  made.  Were 
they  made  to  the  Pope  as  a  referee,  voluntarily 
chosen  by  the  parties  in  dispute,  or  was  he  the 
supreme  judicial  authority  ?  Anglicans  claim  that 
the  way  his  decisions  were  often  resisted,  set  aside, 
and  ignored,  is  contrary  to  the  assumption  that 
Churchmen  recognized  in  him  divinely  given  au- 
thority which  was  final  and  absolute.  Why  should 
the  council  of  Sardica  grant  the  privilege  of  appeal 
in  certain  cases,  if  the  unquestioned  right  of  appeal 
had  existed  from  the  first?  Surely  there  was  no 
necessity  for  any  council  to  legislate  concerning  a 
recognized  prerogative  of  the  Roman  See. 

We  come  now  to  something  which  bears 
strongly  on  the  question  of  appeals  to  Rome. 

The  growth  of  the  papal  claims  and  their  ac- 
ceptance during  the  middle  ages,  was  enormously 
assisted  by  the  publication  of  what  are  now  known 
as  the  "Pseudo-Isidorian,  or  false  Decretals; 
which  appeared  about  the  year  850,  and  purported 
to  be  a  series  of  over  one  hundred  letters,  decrees, 
and  briefs,  written  by  the  Popes  from  A.D.  90  to 
314;  decrees  of  several  councils,  quotations  from 
the  Fathers,  and  the  supposed  "Donation  of  the 
Emperor  Constantine,"  bestowing  on  the  Roman 
patriarchate  the  gift  of  the  city  of  Rome,  and 
Italy. 

All  these  quotations  supported  strongly  the 
Roman  claim  of  universal  jurisdiction,  and  were 
accepted  in  an  uncritical  age  as  authentic.     They 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  191 

proved  to  be  enormously  effectual  in  extending 
Rome's  dominion ;  and  yet  these  decretals  are  now 
universally  admitted  to  be  forgeries  originating 
not  earlier  than  the  year  600,  even  by  Roman 
Catholic  historians,  like  Fleury,  who  says:  "One 
of  the  greatest  wounds  which  the  false  decretals 
have  inflicted  on  the  discipline  of  the  Church,  is 
that  they  have  extended  infinitely  the  appeals  to 
Rome.  It  appears  that  the  forger  had  this  point 
greatly  at  heart,  by  the  care  he  has  taken  to  dif- 
fuse through  all  his  work,  the  maxim  that  not  only 
every  Bishop,  but  every  priest,  generally  every 
person  who  finds  himself  harrassed,  may  on  every 
occasion  appeal  directly  to  the  pope."  ^ 

The  Jesuit  priest,  Pere  Regnon,  says:  "The 
reforms  brought  about  by  the  Pseudo-Isidore,  con- 
sisted in  reserving  to  the  Roman  Pontiff,  the  trial 
and  judgment  of  all  Bishops." " 

The  false  character  of  these  decretals  is  also 
admitted  by  Cardinal  Baronius,  by  the  Roman 
historian  Bellarmine,  and  others ;  and  though 
until  very  recent  times  they  were  quoted  in  Roman 
controversial  books,  they  are  now  practically  dis- 
carded. 

It  is  a  sad  and  most  unfortunate  fact,  yet  one 
which  is  easily  capable  of  demonstration  by  any 
competent  historian,  that  all  along  the  ages, 
Rome's  interests  have  been  advanced  by  forgeries 


*  Carter's  Roman  Question,  p.  52. 

*  E.  G.  Wood's  Regal  Power  of  the  Church. 


192  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

and  falsification  of  the  Fathers ;  and  that  such 
interpolations  are  quoted  with  approval  to-day, 
in  Eoman  controversial  books;  and  that  it  is  not 
safe  to  accept  patristic  quotations  in  such  books, 
without  verifying  them  at  first  hand. 

There  are  plenty  of  historic  facts  which  are  ut- 
terly inconsistent  with  the  assumption  that  the 
supreme  judicial  and  spiritual  authority  of  the 
Church,  has  always  been  in  the  hands  of  the  Bish- 
ops of  Rome.  For  example :  the  first  difficulty 
which  required  judicial  action  in  the  Apostolic 
Church,  was  settled  by  a  council  of  the  whole 
Church  at  Jerusalem. 

When  Victor,  Bishop  of  Rome,  A.D.  196, 
undertook  to  excommunicate  the  Asiatic  Churches, 
because  they  disagreed  with  him  about  the  time 
of  the  observance  of  Easter,  he  was  rebuked  by  the 
other  Bishops,  including  Irenaeus,  and  his  excom- 
munication was  ignored,  and  had  no  effect  what- 
ever. 

In  the  fourth  century,  the  Council  of  Sardica 
allowed  a  condemned  Bishop  to  appeal  to  Rome 
for  a  new  trial;  not  as  a  recognized  right,  but  as 
conferring  a  privilege.  This  canon  of  Sardica, 
was  misquoted  by  the  Bishops  of  Rome  as  being 
a  canon  of  the  Council  of  Nicea  in  a  controversy 
with  the  African  Bishops.  But  the  latter  consulted 
the  Eastern  Patriarchs,  and,  so  discovering  the 
misquotations,  replied  to  the  Patriarch  of  Rome 
through  his  legates,  "We  find  it  enacted  in  no 
council  of  the  Fathers,  that  any  person  may  be 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  193 

sent  as  legates  of  your  holiness Do  not 

therefore  at  the  request  of  any,  send  your  clergy 
as  agents  for  you,  lest  we  seem  to  introduce  into 
the  Church  of  Christ  the  ambitious  pride  of  the 
world."  ^ 

The  great  Arian  heresy  which  denied  the  divin- 
ity of  our  Lord,  was  settled  by  the  Nicene  Council, 
which  was  called,  not  by  the  Pope,  but  by  the 
Emperor  Constantine.  Hosius  presided,  and  the 
heresy  was  finally  refuted,  not  through  the  pro- 
nouncement of  the  Pope,  but  through  the  argument 
of  Athanasius ;  while  later  a  Pope,  Liberius,  under 
pressure  signed  an  heretical  creed. 

Then  the  heresy  denying  the  divinity  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  was  settled  at  the  Council  of  Con- 
stantinople in  381,  at  which  the  Xicene  Creed  was 
reaffirmed,  and  the  sentences  defining  doctrine 
concerning  the  Holy  Ghost  added,  and  the  Koman 
Bishop  was  not  present  either  in  person  or  through 
his  legates.  Meletius  of  Antioch  presided  at  the 
council,  and  was  succeeded  by  Gregory  Nazianzen, 
Patriarch  of  Constantinople;  and  so  in  the  settle- 
ment of  the  two  greatest  heresies,  the  authority  of 
the  Bishop  of  Rome  counted  for  little  or  nothing; 
and  it  is  interesting  to  note  that  the  Bishops  assem- 
bled in  council  at  Constantinople  in  381,  in  their 
Epistle  to  the  Western  Bishops  assembled  at  Rome, 
called  the  Church  of  Jerusalem  the  "Mother  of 
all  Churches." 


Bp.  Gore's  R.  C.  Claims,  p.  115. 


194  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

Of  course  the  most  complete  refutation  of  the 
Roman  claim  of  supremacy  has  been  the  historic 
position  of  the  four  patriarchates  of  the  Eastern 
Church,  which  have  never  acknowledged  the  claims 
of  such  universal  jurisdiction,  and  yet  were  in 
communion  with  the  patriarch  of  Rome  until  the 
twelfth  century. 

The  claims  of  supreme  and  spiritual  jurisdic- 
tion over  the  whole  Church,  on  the  part  of  the 
Bishop  of  Rome,  cannot  stand  the  test  of  catholic- 
ity, and  so  become  articles  of  faith,  unless  they 
have  been  acknowledged  always,  everywhere,  and 
by  all  Catholics;  and  this  we  have  shown  to  be 
historically  incredible. 

Roman  Catholics  are  very  fond  of  asserting 
that  a  visible  Church  must  have  a  visible  head; 
and  that  as  there  is  no  other  Bishop  who  claims 
to  be  the  head  of  the  Church  but  the  Pope  of 
Rome,  therefore  he  must  be  that  head.  We  reply, 
that  in  the  Holy  Scriptures  St.  Paul  asserts  that 
Jesus  Christ  is  the  Head  of  the  Church;  and  he 
nowhere  recognizes  any  other  head ;  though  he 
constantly  insists  on  the  visible,  organic  nature 
of  the  Church  itself.  St.  Augustine  asserts  the 
same  fact,  thus:  '^Since  the  whole  Christ  is  made 
up  of  the  head  and  the  body,  the  head  is  our 
Saviour  Himself,  who  suffered  under  Pontius 
Pilate,  who  now,  after  He  has  risen  from  the  dead, 
sits  at  the  right  hand  of  God ;  but  His  body  is  the 
Church ;  not  this  Church,  or  that,  but  the  Church 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  195 

scattered  over  all  the  world.  .  .  .  For  the  whole 
Church,  made  up  of  all  the  faithful,  because  all 
the  faithful  are  members  of  Christ,  has  its  head 
situate  in  the  heavens  which  governs  this  body: 
though  it  is  separated  from  their  sight,  yet  it  is 
bound  to  them  by  love."  *  Then  again,  it  must  be 
remembered  that  the  greater  part  of  the  Catholic 
Church  is  made  up  of  souls  in  Paradise,  and  there- 
fore is  not  visible  to  us ;  and  Christ  is  the  Head 
of  the  Church  to  them,  as  well  as  to  us. 

But  supposing  the  visible  Church  must  have  a 
visible  head  we  reply,  as  a  practical  matter  of 
fact,  the  universal  episcopate  assembled  in  gen- 
eral council  was  from  the  first  regarded  as  the  head 
of  the  Church;  the  ultimate  source  and  seat  of 
authority,  to  which  the  Bishop  of  Rome  himself 
was  always  subject:  as  is  proved  by  the  fact,  that 
the  universal  Episcopate  settled  heresies,  defined 
the  Faith,  and  deposed  Popes  who  were  themselves 
heretics,  and  excommunicated  them. 

It  makes  a  neat  turn  of  an  argument  to  say 
that  the  visible  Church  must  have  a  visible  head ; 
and  then  to  set  forth  the  Pope  as  that  head;  but 
after  all,  it  is  merely  a  question  of  historic  fact, 
and  history  points  to  the  universal  Episcopate  as 
the  head,  and  not  to  the  Pope  of  Rome. 

If  the  Pope  of  Rome  is  the  head  of  the  Church, 
then  when  the  Pope  dies,  apparently  the  Church 
has  no  head,  and  remains  a  headless  monster,  per- 


*  St.  Aug.  On  the  Psalms,  p.  56 L 


196  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

haps  for  several  months,  until  another  Pope  is 
elected  and  enthroned.  Surely  this  is  a  curious 
condition  of  things,  that  the  Church  should  be 
continually  sloughing  off  its  head,  and  growing 
another,  every  generation  or  so;  so  that  every 
little  while  it  has  no  head  at  all.  The  collective 
Episcopate  does  not  die ;  but  lives  on  from  age  to 
age,  and  as  the  head  of  the  Church,  is  abiding  and 
permanent. 

The  whole  growth  of  the  papal  claim  may  be 
summarized  by  four  words :  Primacy,  Supremacy, 
Sovereignty,  and  InfallihilHy.  The  Primacy  of 
Eome  Anglicans  admit  to  be  lawful;  not  as  of 
divine  appointment,  but  as  a  matter  of  precedence 
and  executive  convenience,  originating  from  the 
prominence  of  the  Imperial  city.  The  Supremacy 
of  Rome  Anglicans  reject,  as  disturbing  the  orig- 
inal balance  of  power  defined  by  the  general  coun- 
cils and  canon  law  of  the  Church.  The  Sover- 
eignty of  Rome  Anglicans  repudiate,  as  mere  sec- 
ular Imperialism  transferred  to  the  Church,  from 
the  State.  The  Infallibility  of  the  Roman  pon- 
tiffs the  Anglican  Church  denies,  as  an  assumption 
by  one  man  in  the  Church  of  a  power,  or  faculty, 
conferred  by  our  Lord  on  the  Church  as  a  whole. 

From  what  has  been  said,  it  seems  evident 
that  there  is  no  scriptural  evidence  that  St.  Peter 
was  appointed  supreme  head  of  the  Church  by  our 
Lord,  and  that  there  is  no  historical  evidence  of 
any  sort  which  proves  that  St.  Peter  ever  attempted 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  197 

to  transmit  any  authority  peculiar  to  himself  to 
the  Bishops  of  Rome;  and  that  what  the  early- 
Church  conceded  to  the  Patriarch  of  Rome,  was  a 
primacy  of  honor  among  equals,  and  not  a  suprem- 
acy of  authority,  by  divine  appointment. 


CHAPTER  XIV 

THE    CATHOLIC    METHOD    OF    DEFINING   THE    TRUTH 

$0  FAR  we  have  been  considering  the  nature, 
authority,  and  history  of  the  Catholic  Church 
as  an  organization ;  and  now  we  must  consider  the 
first  of  the  great  functions  of  the  Church,  her 
office  as  a  teacher;  and  this  brings  us  to  the  ques- 
tion. How  does  the  Church  determine  and  define 
what  is  divine  truth  ? 

We  must  begin  by  assuming  that  when  the 
Lord  Christ  was  visibly  present  among  men.  He 
taught  certain  truths  as  revelations  of  His  Divine 
Mind,  which  we  never  could  have  found  out  for 
ourselves  by  any  natural  process  of  reasoning. 
These  truths  concern  the  Nature  of  God,  and  His 
relation  to  us;  and  the  Lord  willed  that  all  men 
should  know  and  accept  these  truths,  as  the  gTound 
of  the  salvation  of  their  souls.  * 

All  Catholic  Churchmen  believe  that  it  is  the 
function  of  the  Church  to  hold,  define,  and  teach 
this  revealed  truth  throughout  the  world,  by  the 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  199 

authority  of  the  Lord  who  has  committed  this 
truth  to  the  keeping  of  the  Church. 

Right  here  we  must  be  careful  to  distinguish 
between  revelation  and  inspiration;  between  the 
work  of  the  Lord,  and  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
in  conveying  divine  truth  to  us;  in  order  to  de- 
termine accurately,  what  share  the  Church  may 
have  in  this  work.  We  believe  that  the  substance 
of  the  Christian  Faith  was  revealed,  whole  and 
entire,  by  the  Lord  to  His  Apostles ;  that  the  Faith 
"was  once  (for  all)  delivered  to  the  saints" ;  and 
that  therefore,  they  certainly  cannot  add  to  it  in 
the  slightest  particular.  Whatever  function  the 
Church  may  serve,  she  cannot  reveal  any  new 
truth,  nor  can  she  add  any  new  dogma  to  the  Cath- 
olic creed.  She  can  simply  hold,  define,  and  teach, 
the  truth  which  was  delivered  to  her  in  its  en- 
tirety.    She  can  do  no  more,  and  certainly  no  less. 

The  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  not  to  reveal, 
but  to  guide  men  in  the  acceptance  of  what  has 
been  already  revealed,  so  that  they  may  be  sure  of 
knowing  what  the  revelation  itself  is,  interpret 
it  correctly,  and  apply  it  to  their  own  individual 
lives.  The  Lord  Himself  promised  such  guidance 
when  He  said:  "The  Comforter,  even  the  Holv 
Spirit,  whom  the  Father  will  send  in  My  Name, 
He  shall  teach  you  all  things,  and  bring  to  your 
remembrance  all  that  I  said  unto  you"  (John  xiv. 
26).  "Howbeit,  when  He,  the  Spirit  of  Truth, 
is  come,  He  shall  guide  you  into  all  the  truth" 


200  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

(John  xvi.  13).  Supposing  then,  that  our  Lord 
has  delivered  His  revelation  to  His  Apostles  by 
oral  teaching,  once  for  all,  how  does  the  Holy 
Spirit  begin  His  work? 

If  we  put  this  question  to  an  evangelical  Prot- 
estant, he  will  probably  reply,  that  the  Holy  Spirit 
inspired  the  Apostles  to  write  a  Book;  that  He 
guided  them  in  their  writing,  so  that  they  were 
saved  from  any  radical  error ;  and  that  therefore, 
the  Bible  is  the  Word  of  God,  and  is  the  embodi- 
ment of  the  revelation  of  Christ  to  men. 

ISTow  any  Catholic  Churchman  will  at  once 
agree  with  this  statement,  and  no  Anglo-Catholic 
would  for  a  moment  think  of  teaching  anything 
as  necessary  to  salvation,  that  was  contrary  to  the 
Holy  Scriptures.  But  there  is  another  question 
right  here. 

Supposing  that  the  Bible  is  the  Word  of  God, 
how  do  you  know  what  it  means?  Confessedly 
it  is  capable  of  different  interpretations.  Which 
is  the  right  one?  The  evangelical  Protestant  will 
probably  reply,  that  having  studied  the  Scriptures, 
carefully  and  prayerfully,  he  believes  that  the 
Holy  Spirit  guides  him,  in  his  interpretation  and 
understanding  of  the  Bible ;  so  that  he  is  to  make 
up  his  creed  out  of  the  Bible.  This  seems  to  be 
the  general  Protestant  idea  of  the  matter;  that  the 
Holy  Spirit  guides  the  individual  Christian  in  the 
interpretation  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  and  on  such 
guidance  his  belief  rests. 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  201 

Now,  true  as  this  assumption  is  in  a  certain 
limited  sense,  it  presents  at  once  certain  very 
serious  difficulties,  which  we  must  consider.  For 
if  you  start  out  with  the  assumption  that  the  Bible 
alone,  by  itself,  independent  of  the  Church,  is  all 
that  you  need,  how  are  you  going  to  determine 
that  the  Bible  you  have  in  the  twentieth  century, 
is  the  Bible  the  Apostles  wrote  in  the  first  ?  And 
how  are  you  going  to  tell  that  the  Bible  itself  is 
inspired  ? 

There  were  many  spurious  gospels  afloat  in 
the  early  Church,  before  the  canon  of  the  'New 
Testament  was  finally  settled:  and  some  of  them, 
so  far  as  their  moral  tone  was  concerned,  were 
indistinguishable  from  the  inspired  Books ;  but  the 
Church,  by  a  divine  instinct,  rejected  them,  under 
the  guidance  of  the  Holy  Ghost;  and  so,  appar- 
ently, the  testimony  of  the  Church  must  come  in 
at  just  this  point,  to  certify  to  the  inspiration  of 
the  Bible.  No  doubt  we  believe  the  Bible  to  be  in- 
spired, largely  because  it  appeals  to  our  conscience 
and  moral  sensibilities;  but  suppose  a  man  says 
it  does  not  appeal  to  his  sensibilities,  as  Martin 
Luther  did  when  he  rejected  the  Epistle  of  St. 
James;  then  surely  some  external  authority  must 
settle  the  matter. 

Then  again,  the  ISTew  Testament  was  written  in 
the  Church  by  Churchmen,  and  has  been  cared  for 
ever  since  by  the  Church.  Before  the  modern 
science  of  textual  criticism  was  perfected,  the  only 


202  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

assurance  that  men  had  that  the  Bible  they  read 
was  the  one  the  Apostles  wrote,  was  the  Church's 
testimony,  certifying  that  the  original  documents 
Avere  properly  transcribed  and  copied  from  age 
to  age,  and  protected  from  interpolations  or  serious 
changes. 

So,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  the  individual  Prot- 
estant has  got  to  fall  back  on  the  witness  of  the 
Church  in  determining  the  preliminary  questions 
of  the  identity  and  inspiration  of  the  Bible,  before 
he  begins  to  interpret  it. 

Then  in  the  second  place,  does  it  seem  likely 
that  God  would  leave  the  individual  Christian, 
the  average  busy  man,  to  determine  exactly  what 
the  Bible  means  in  its  doctrinal  statements,  when 
you  remember  that  it  was  written  in  languages 
he  does  not  understand,  that  parts  of  its  translation 
are  imperfect,  and  some  of  the  Greek  text  doubt- 
ful; that  it  is  not  one  Book,  but  sixty-six  books; 
that  it  is  an  elaborate  compilation  of  history,  po- 
etry, and  philosophy  which  belong  to  other  races 
and  remote  centuries ;  that  it  uses  words,  and  refers 
to  customs,  that  are  obsolete;  and  that  even  doc- 
trine is  not  stated  in  systematic  form,  but  only 
incidentally  and  disconnectedly,  in  sermons,  letters, 
and  official  documents;  when  many  passages  are 
still  under  debate  among  clever  scholars  ?  Surely 
it  must  be  a  great  undertaking  for  the  individual, 
by  himself,  to  adopt  the  Bible  as  his  creed,  and 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  203 

attempt  to  tell  just  what  it  means,  without  any 
external  help  in  the  matter. 

But  more  than  this.  If  individual  interpreta- 
tion was  to  be  the  source  of  truth  for  men,  directly 
from  the  Bible,  how  did  it  happen  that  the  canon 
of  the  Bible  was  not  settled  exactly  for  centliries ; 
that  its  manuscripts  were  almost  wholly  in  pos- 
session of  the  clergy;  that  printing  was  not  in- 
vented for  fourteen  hundred  years ;  and  that  until 
it  was,  laymen  did  not  have  the  Bible  as  we  have  it, 
to  make  their  creeds  from,  but  learned  the  Scrip- 
tures through  the  oral  teaching  of  the  clergy  of  the 
Church,  in  whose  possession  the  Scriptures  had 
always  been  ?  The  historical  position  of  the  Bible 
seems  to  have  been  from  the  first  inconsistent  with 
the  Protestant  theory. 

Of  course  the  final  test  of  any  theory  is  the 
result  of  its  application  in  practice.  Does  the 
Protestant  theory  furnish  men  with  any  certainty 
as  to  the  truth  ?    Let  us  see. 

If  the  Bible  interprets  itself  correctly  to  the 
private  judgTnent  of  the  individual  Protestant, 
we  have  a  right  to  expect  that  it  will  produce  some 
unity  of  belief  among  Protestants.  ISTow  granting 
that  the  Bible  is  the  divinely  inspired  and  only 
source  of  religious  truth  and  revelation  from  God 
to  man,  we  ask  one  plain  question:  WHAT 
DOES  IT  MEAIT? 

You  call  yourself  a  Bible  Christian.  Very 
well,  then.     Suppose  you  make  up  your  creed  out 


204  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

of  the  Bible,  according  to  your  light.  Then  cer- 
tainly yon  must  grant  to  any  other  man  the  same 
privilege.  'Now  suppose  he  happens  to  diJffer  with 
you.  Granting  that  you  are  equally  sincere  and 
intelligent,  who  is  right?  One  man  studies  his 
Bible,  and  becomes  a  Presbyterian ;  another  studies 
his  Bible,  and  becomes  a  Baptist;  another  studies 
his  Bible,  and  becomes  a  Unitarian;  another 
studies  his  Bible,  and  becomes  a  Roman  Catholic ; 
and  every  one  of  these  men  will  give  you  what  he 
honestly  believes  to  be  satisfactory  scriptural  evi- 
dence, proving  the  truth  of  his  belief.  Each  one 
regards  himself  as  preeminently  a  "Bible  Chris- 
tian." 

ISTow  suppose  ten,  twenty,  forty,  or  five  hun- 
dred men  use  your  privilege,  and  all  of  them  differ 
more  or  less  from  you  and  from  each  other,  in 
their  individual  conclusions.  Who  is  right  ?  Then 
suppose  this  process  goes  on,  until  every  doctrine 
of  Christianity  is  subjected  to  the  same  treatment, 
and  yet  there  is  no  agreement.  You  have  your 
open  Bibles.  JSTow  we  ask,  What  is  the  truth? 
What  authority  among  Protestants  is  there  to 
settle  the  question?  Where  in  the  process  does 
orthodoxy  leave  off,  and  error  begin?  And  what 
is  to  stop  the  movement,  or  to  prevent  the  Prot- 
estant Churches  from  drifting  into  rationalism, 
pure  and  simple  ?  What  is  to  save  them  from  a 
total  collapse  of  the  teaching  power  ? 

This  is  no  imaginary  supposition,  for  abroad. 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  205 

where  Protestantism  has  existed  longest  and  has 
had  time  to  work  out  more  fully  the  logic  of  its 
principles,  Protestants  have  many  of  them  drifted 
into  rationalism,  and  denied  every  characteristic 
doctrine  of  Christianity.  If  it  be  replied  that  the 
Orthodox  Protestant  Churches  do  agree,  for  ex- 
ample, in  salvation  through  Christ,  we  ask,  What 
right  have  you  to  determine  who  are  orthodox,  and 
who  are  not,  by  this  test?  The  man  who  studies 
his  Bible  and  concludes  that  he  does  not  believe 
in  salvation  through  Christ,  has  arrived  at  his 
conclusions  by  the  same  process  by  which  you  have 
arrived  at  yours.  A  Unitarian  or  a  Universalist 
is  as  consistently  Protestant  as  you  are.  He  has 
his  Bible,  his  reason,  and  his  imagination.  You 
have  the  same  outfit.  You  use  the  same  process ; 
you  both  quote  Scripture,  and  yet  you  differ. 
Unless  you  have  some  authority  to  which  you  both 
can  appeal,  I  fail  to  see  what  is  going  to  help  you. 
Now  the  Protestant  boast  has  always  been,  that 
it  has  set  the  Bible  free  from  the  Church,  and  has 
put  it  into  the  hands  of  all  laymen,  so  that  every- 
body could  have  access  to  the  truth ;  but  when  men 
received  the  Bible  as  interj^reted  by  the  Church, 
there  was  comparative  imity  of  belief;  and  now 
that  the  Bible  is  separated  from  the  Church,  there 
are  as  manv  creeds  as  there  are  sects :  and  nowhere 
in  Protestantism  is  there  any  generally  recognized 
authority  which  can  define  doctrine,  or  settle  the 
endless  dispute   and  say  what  the  Bible  means. 


206  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

Suppose  we  take  so  simple  a  statement  of  Christian 
doctrine  as  the  Apostles'  Creed.  By  actual  count 
it  can  be  shown  that  there  are  between  thirty  and 
forty  varying  interpretations  of  that  creed,  held 
by  different  Protestant  denominations  to-day ;  and 
on  their  own  principle  of  individual  interpretation, 
there  is  absolutely  no  way  of  finding  out  which  is 
the  right  one. 

We  may  sum  up  the  whole  matter  in  this  way : 
The  Churchman  says  to  the  Protestant,  You  have 
no  recognized  authority  for  defining  and  teaching 
truth.  The  Protestant  replies.  Oh,  yes  we  have; 
we  all  agree  that  the  Bible  is  that  authority.  The 
Churchman  replies,  Very  well,  then,  what  does 
the  Bible  teach?  And  the  Protestant,  if  he  is 
honest,  is  obliged  to  say,  We  are  not  agreed  as  to 
what  the  Bible  does  teach.  And  then  the  Church- 
man says.  How  then  am  I  to  know  the  truth  ?  And 
to  this  question  Protestants  can  give  no  answer. 

However  strongly  and  implicitly  one  may  be- 
lieve that  the  Bible  is  the  divinely  inspired  Word 
of  God,  the  fact  still  remains,  that  as  interpreted 
by  the  individual  Protestant,  it  does  not  and  can- 
not produce  unity  of  belief.  Therefore  it  would 
seem  that  there  ought  to  be  some  teaching  authority 
somewhere,  competent  to  tell  men  what  is  the  truth 
of  Revelation  and  the  correct  interpretation  of 
Holy  Scriptures. 

For  if  God  made  a  revelation  of  certain  truth 
which  men  must  accept  as  the  ground  of  their  sal- 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  207 

vation,  that  truth  certainly  must  be  expressed  in 
definite  terms  which  men  can  comprehend,  and  so 
plainly  set  forth  by  competent  authority,  that  the 
ordinary,  hard-working  man  may  have  the  same 
chance  of  knowing  the  truth,  and  accepting  it,  as 
any  critical  expert  scholar ;  sure  that  he  has  found 
it  beyond  a  peradventure.  God  does  not  ask  us  to 
do  impossible  things;  and  He  surely  does  not 
expect  the  average  man  to  sift  the  claims  of  a  hun- 
dred sects  and  a  hundred  creeds,  in  order  to  form 
his  OAVii  opinion;  and  then,  after  all,  to  have  noth- 
ing hut  his  own  opinion  when  he  gets  through. 

What  men  need  is  some  accredited  teacher  in 
which  they  can  have  confidence,  which  can  come 
to  them  and  say.  This  is  the  truth;  and  if  there 
is  no  such  teacher,  then  one  fails  to  see  how  they 
can  be  sure  of  the  truth  at  all,  with  nothing  better 
than  their  o^vn  fallible  judgments  to  guide  them 
in  interpreting  the  Bible. 

In  many  other  departments  of  human  knowl- 
edge, men  accept  much  of  what  they  believe,  on  the 
testimony  of  some  competent  authority.  For  ex- 
ample, there  is  such  a  thing  as  a  code  of  civil  law 
by  which  the  affairs  of  the  nation  are  governed; 
but  while  this  system  of  law  is  of  supreme  author- 
ity, and  complete  in  itself,  it  has  to  be  interpreted 
and  applied  by  a  living  court  of  some  sort,  which 
defines  what  the  law  means.  Any  man  who  at- 
tempts to  be  his  own  lawyer,  is  generally  a  fool 
for  his  pains.     !N'ow  why  should  we  assume,  that 


208  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

while  a  living  court  is  necessary  to  interpret  the 
law  of  man,  to  men,  no  such  authority  is  necessary 
to  interpret  the  law  of  God  to  men,  but  each  man 
can  make  his  own  interpretation,  for  himself  ? 

Catholic  Churchmen  claim  that  there  is,  and 
there  can  be,  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  only  one 
remedy  for  the  confused  teaching  of  modern  Prot- 
estantism, and  that  is,  to  show  men  plainly  that 
God  did  not  make  a  revelation  of  truth,  incorporate 
it  in  a  book,  and  then  leave  that  book  to  be  under- 
stood or  misunderstood  by  the  individual ;  but  that, 
before  God  inspired  the  New  Testament  at  all, 
He  first  created  a  corporate,  living  organism,  a 
court  of  appeal,  which  was  to  exist  always,  and  to 
this  Church  He  commits  His  revelation. 

Has,  then,  the  Catholic  Church  anything  better 
to  offer  than  individual  interpretation  as  a  method 
of  determining  the  truth  of  revelation  ?  To  answer 
this,  we  must  go  back  for  a  moment,  and  start 
again  with  our  original  assumption  that  our  Lord 
gave  His  revelation  of  divine  truth  to  the  Apos- 
tles, complete  in  substance,  and  that  the  Church 
cannot  add  to  that  revelation.  How  then  does  the 
Holy  Spirit  begin  His  work?  The  Protestant 
reply  was,  By  inspiring  the  Bible;  but  we  claim 
that  something  else  comes  first.  In  other  words, 
the  Holy  Spirit,  as  we  have  already  shown,  guided 
the  Apostles  to  complete  the  organization  of  the 
Catholic  Church,  many  years  before  a  word  of 
the    'New    Testament   was    written.      When   the 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  209 

Church  begins  to  teach,  the  Holy  Spirit  does  two 
things:  He  so  guides  the  minds  of  the  Apostles 
that  they  all,  everywhere,  preach  and  teach  the 
same  thing,  and  He  so  opens  the  minds  of  those 
who  hear,  that  the  Church  everywhere  receives 
and  accej)ts  the  same  oral  teaching;  "continues 
steadfastly  in  the  Apostles'  doctrine."  The  Faith 
being  thus  definitely  taught,  and  everywhere  re- 
ceived, must  necessarily  begin  to  assume  exact  ex- 
pression in  creed  forms;  and  to  such  forms  the 
Bible  frequently  alludes,  as  existing  when  it  was 
written.  "Hold  the  pattern  of  sound  words"  (II. 
Tim.  i.  13).  "Contend  earnestly  for  the  Faith 
which  was  once  for  all  delivered  to  the  saints" 
(Jude  3).  'The  holy  commandment  delivered" 
(XL  Pet.  ii.  21). 

The  Faith  would  also  naturally  find  its  formal 
expression  through  the  sacramental  formulae 
which  were  necessary  for  valid  administration  of 
the  sacraments ;  and  in  the  elemental  creeds  taught 
the  candidates  for  Baptism.  So  far  the  New 
Testament  does  not  exist,  but  the  Catholic  Faith 
does,  and  is  expressed  in  more  or  less  definite 
creed  foi*ms. 

Now  the  Holy  Spirit  begins  His  next  work,  in 
moving  certain  men  in  the  Church  to  write  certain 
letters  and  historic  accounts  of  our  Lord's  life,  and 
in  guiding  them  in  the  selection  of  the  material, 
and  in  correctly  stating  the  facts  with  which  they 
deal.     Thus  we  get  the  books  of  the  New  Testa- 


210  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

ment  Scriptures.  These  scriptures  embody  the 
Faith  already  taught,  but  they  do  not  originate  it. 
As  time  went  on,  there  was  some  dispute  or 
question,  which  demanded  a  further  definition  of 
the  Faith,  or  of  some  point  of  discipline ;  and  we 
see  exactly  how  the  Apostles  determined  it,  by 
noting  their  action  at  the  Council  of  Jerusalem, 
which  represented  the  "Whole  Church" ;  at  which 
council  the  Apostles  and  Elders  announced  the 
decision  thus :  ''It  seemed  good  to  the  Holy  Ghost 
and  to  us."  That  is,  they  distinctly  claim  that  the 
Holy  Ghost  guided  their  counsels,  when  the  Church 
spoke  as  a  whole,  through  them.  When  a  serious 
dispute  about  doctrine  arose,  a  general  council  con- 
sidered the  matter,  and  the  creed  was  further  de- 
fined. ]^ow  we  must  be  exceedingly  careful  to  note 
on  what  this  decision  was  based ;  and  what  it  ac- 
complished. It  certainly  did  not  add  anything 
new  to  the  Faith:  did  not  pretend  to  be  in  any 
sense  a  new  revelation  of  truth.  The  council  was 
called  for  one  purpose,  and  only  one;  namely,  to 
bring  to  a  focus,  as  it  were,  the  teaching  of  the 
whole  Church  about  the  matter  in  dispute ;  and  so 
the  voice  of  the  council  was  regarded  as  infallible, 
only  so  far  as  it  was  representative  of  the  whole 
Church,  which  the  Lord  had  promised  to  guide. 
In  the  great  general  councils  of  the  Church,  the 
question  put  to  every  representative  was,  "What 
has  always  been  the  teaching  about  the  matter  in 
your  Diocese  ?"  and  if  the  replies  produced  a  gen- 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  211 

eral  concensus  of  opinion,  then  it  was  regarded  as 
final.  But  even  then  the  decision  of  the  council 
had  to  be  delivered  to  the  Church,  and  generally 
accepted  by  the  whole  Church,  before  it  became  an 
article  of  Faith. 

In  this  way,  the  great  Catholic  Creed  of  ITicea 
was  formulated  and  delivered,  before  the  Church 
was  divided ;  and  so  it  is  the  teaching  of  the  whole 
Church,  as  finally  defined  in  451  at  Chalcedon. 
Now  the  Catholic  Faith  of  the  Church  thus  de- 
fined, is  not  in  any  sense  a  rival  of  Holy  Scrip- 
ture; much  less  is  it  an  addition  to  the  revelation 
of  the  Bible;  but  it  is  the  Church's  definition  of 
what  she  has  always  believed,  even  before  the  iSTew 
Testament  was  written.  The  Church  constantly 
verifies  it  by  the  Bible,  and  finds  in  the  Bible 
scriptural  testimony  to  its  truth. 

Thus  we  believe  that  the  Catholic  Faith  fur- 
nishes a  standard  of  interpretation,  by  which  the 
Bible  may  be  correctly  understood.  The  Anglo- 
Catholic  claims  that  the  Church  is  the  "witness 
and  keeper  of  Holy  Writ."  He  accepts  the  Holy 
Scriptures  as  the  Word  of  God,  as  they  have  been 
interpreted  by  the  Church  semper^  uhique,  et  ah 
omnibus. 

That  is  the  true  Faith,  and  that  is  the  true 
interpretation  of  the  Bible,  which  has  been  held 
always,  everywhere,  and  by  all  Churchmen.  Apart 
from  the  Catholic  Creeds,  such  interpretation  is 
embodied  in  the  decisions  of  the  general  councils, 


212  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

in  the  writings  of  the  Fathers,  in  the  liturgies  and 
offices  of  the  Church,  and  in  her  constant  tradi- 
tions and  customs:  and  to  these  the  Churchman 
appeals,  as  giving  the  Catholic  sense  of  Holy 
Scripture. 

A  Protestant  might  ask  at  this  point,  Is  not 
a  modern  Christian,  with  twentieth  century  schol- 
arship behind  him,  far  better  able  to  tell  what  the 
Bible  means,  than  one  of  the  Fathers  of  the  second 
century?  And  we  reply,  No:  for  the  thing  we 
want  is  not  merely,  or  primarily,  scholarly  exegesis, 
but  contemporaneous  testimoiiy,  as  to  how  the 
Bible  was  understood,  and  interpreted,  from  the 
first.  The  difference  between,  say,  Justin  Martyr, 
and  a  modern  scholar,  is  just  this :  Justin  Martyr 
is  competent  to  tell  how  the  disciples  of  St.  John 
were  taught  to  interpret  the  Bible,  and  how  it  was 
understood  in  his  time;  whereas  the  modern 
scholar,  with  all  his  fine  exegesis,  lives  some 
eighteen  centuries  too  late,  to  do  anything  of  the 
sort.  We  do  not  appeal  to  the  Fathers  primarily 
for  their  personal  opinion,  but  for  their  personal 
testimony,  as  to  a  matter  of  fact.  And  whereas 
one  of  the  Fathers  might  be  very  deficient  in  mod- 
em methods  of  textual  criticism,  he  might  make  a 
first-rate  witness  as  to  how  the  Bible  was  imder- 
stood  in  his  day. 

The  initial  mistake  of  Protestants  is,  as  we 
believe,  the  assumption  that  the  Lord  promised 
the  guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit  to  individuals, 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  213 

as  individuals,  in  the  interpretation  of  the  Bible. 
'No  doubt  the  Holy  Spirit  does  help  individuals 
to  enter  more  fully  into  the  spiritual  meaning  of 
the  Bible,  and  in  the  understanding  of  doctrine. 
But  in  the  formulation  of  dogma,  the  Spirit's 
guidance  was  promised  to  the  Church  as  a  whole; 
not  to  any  one  part,  or  branch  of  it,  not  to  any 
individual  in  it,  be  he  Pope  or  layman. 

The  Church,  not  the  individual,  is  the  organ  of 
the  Spirit's  utterance.  Individuals  might  err ;  but 
against  the  Church  as  such,  "the  gates  of  hell  shall 
not  prevail"  (Matt.  xvi.  18).  It  was  to  be  "the 
Church  of  the  living  God:  the  pillar  and  gTound 
of  the  truth"  (I.  Tim.  iii.  15).  The  Lord  was 
speaking  to  the  ministerial  nucleus  of  the  Church, 
when  He  said,  "the  Spirit  shall  guide  you  into  all 
the  truth"  (  John  xvi.  13).  He  was  not  speaking 
to  men  at  large. 

The  whole  Church  defines  her  belief  through 
a  general  council.  The  Anglo-Catholic  Church 
recognizes  the  authority  of  the  great  general  coun- 
cils of  the  Church,  and  accepts  their  decisions  as 
binding  upon  herself.  Her  appeal,  as  against  the 
claims  of  Rome,  has  always  been  to  a  free  and 
open  General  Council  of  the  whole  Church.  Such 
an  appeal  was  made  before,  during,  and  after  the 
Reformation;  but  in  every  case  it  was  defeated 
by  the  Popes  (chiefly  Martin  V.),  who  naturally 
were  afraid  of  the  result  of  such  open  and  general 
discussion  and  consideration  of  their  claims,  as 
a  general  coimcil  would  bring  out. 


214  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

Most  unfortunately  the  suspension  of  inter- 
communion between  East  and  West  and  again 
between  Anglicans  and  Romans,  has  rendered  the 
calling  of  a  general  council  impossible,  at  least 
for  the  present  age.  But  fortunately,  in  the  prov- 
idence of  God,  before  intercommunion  was  sus- 
pended, the  Catholic  Faith  had  been  sufficiently 
defined  to  furnish  criteria  for  the  decision  of 
theological  questions,  and  for  the  consistent  inter- 
pretation of  Holy  Scriptures;  and  however  de- 
sirable another  general  council  might  be,  such  a 
council  is  not  necessary  at  present  for  the  defini- 
tion of  truth,  or  the  detection  of  heresy.  Until 
a  general  council  is  again  possible,  local  synods 
and  provincial  councils  must  be  guided  by  the  Law 
of  Catholic  consent,  as  they  were,  previous  to 
A.  D.  325,  and  as  they  have  been  practically  since 
A.  D.  681. 

If  you  remember  how  divided  Protestants  be- 
came in  their  belief  almost  immediately  after  the 
Reformation,  and  you  find  a  fairly  consistent 
scheme  of  teaching  voiced  by  the  Catholic  Church 
everywhere  for  many  centuries,  it  is  difficult  to 
account  for  this  fact,  unless  you  assume  that 
some  supernatural  guidance  has  been  at  work,  over- 
ruling the  speculations  of  men,  directing  their 
teaching,  and  opening  the  hearts  of  others,  for  its 
recognition  and  acceptance.  No  matter  how  much 
Greeks,  Anglicans,  and  Romans  may  differ  about 
some  things,  no  matter  how  much  Rome  may  have 
added  to  the  Faith,  they  all  still  teach  virtually 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  215 

the  same  truth  about  the  Holy  Trinity,  the  In- 
carnation, the  Atonement,  the  Resurrection  and 
Ascension,  about  the  necessity  of  Faith  and  Re- 
pentance, about  the  divine  origin  and  authority  of 
the  Church,  the  functions  of  the  ministry,  the 
sacramental  system,  the  inspiration  of  Holy  Scrip- 
tures, the  duty  of  worship,  the  observance  of  the 
Christian  year,  and  many  other  matters. 

Wherever  there  is  any  important  difference,  as, 
for  example,  between  the  Anglican  and  Roman 
Churches,  we  believe  it  is  simply  due  to  the  fact 
that  Rome  has  in  just  so  far  abandoned  the  rule 
of  universal  consent,  and  has  developed  teachings 
unknown  to  antiquity;  because  she  has  practically 
committed  herself  to  a  doctrine  of  development, 
which  makes  "an  appeal  to  history  treason" ;  and 
because  she  has  made  the  definitions  of  one  man 
"irreformable  of  themselves,"  binding  upon  her 
conscience,  without  regard  to  the  witness  of  the 
Church.  The  Anglo-Roman  controversy  is  not  the 
result  of  the  failure  of  the  Catholic  method  of 
determining  the  truth  of  revelation,  but  is  the 
result  of  an  abandonment  of  that  method,  on  the 
part  of  Rome,  and  the  substitution  of  one  dis- 
tinctly Roman. 

In  asserting  that  the  Bible  does  not  necessarily 
interpret  itself  con'ectly  to  the  individual  Protest- 
ant, let  it  not  be  inferred  that  the  Church  slights 
or  undervalues  the  Bible;  or  that  in  insisting  on 
the  necessity  of  Catholic  interpretation,  we  have 
any  wish  to  undermine  the  sufficiency  of  the  Holy 


216  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

Scriptures,  in  any  way.  So  far  from  the  Church 
neglecting  or  undervaluing  the  Holy  Scriptures, 
the  exact  reverse  is  true,  as  will  be  seen  from  the 
following  facts : 

First,  every  Churchman  confesses  his  belief 
in  the  inspiration  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  when  he 
asserts  in  the  Nicene  Creed  that  "the  Holy  Ghost 
spake  by  the  prophets"  of  the  Old  Testament. 

Second,  wherever  the  Prayer  Book  services 
are  used  in  full,  every  day  of  the  year,  at  least 
four  chapters  of  the  Bible  are  read  publicly,  as  are 
also  six  or  eight  psalms,  and  two  selections  from 
the  Gospels  and  Epistles;  to  say  nothing  of  the 
fact  that  much  of  the  service  is  in  scriptural  lan- 
guage. So  a  Churchman  hears  at  least  ten  times 
as  much  Scripture  in  his  Church  as  a  Protestant 
hears  in  his  extempore  worship. 

Third,  the  Church  has  a  system  for  setting 
forth  the  great  Gospel  facts  of  the  Bible,  which 
Protestantism  wholly  lacks.  The  Church  takes  each 
great  event  of  the  Gospel,  and  sets  apart  a  day, 
or  a  series  of  days,  for  its  commemoration;  so 
that  in  the  festivals  and  fasts  of  the  Christian  year, 
each  great  Gospel  truth  is  set  forth  and  emphasized 
in  its  chronological  order ;  beginning  with  Advent, 
which  teaches  the  fact  of  our  Lord's  coming,  and 
then  proceeding  through  Christmas,  Epiphany, 
Lent,  Holy  Week,  Good  Friday,  Easter,  Ascension, 
following  closely  the  Gospel  narrative  of  our  Lord's 
life.  Again  it  must  be  noted,  that  each  festival 
gathers  around   it  parts   of  the  Holy   Scripture 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  217 

which  refer  to  its  theme.  Thus  the  Church  de- 
velops a  marvellous  plan  of  reading  and  teaching 
the  Scripture  itself,  according  to  an  intelligent 
system,  and  so  sets  forth  the  whole  Scripture  as 
it  bears  on  our  salvation  through  the  Lord  Christ. 
The  priest  of  the  Church  is  not  left  to  make  his 
own  selections,  read  his  own  favorite  passages 
merely,  and  give  the  people  just  as  little  of  the 
Scriptures  as  he  sees  fit. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  Protestantism,  which 
makes  a  great  show  of  exalting  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures, has  absolutely  no  systematic  method  of 
reading  them  or  grouping  them,  and  a  Protestant 
hears  very  much  less  of  them  read  in  public,  than 
does  a  Catholic  Churchman. 

Moreover  one  of  the  most  notable  advantages 
of  a  liturgical  system  of  worship  is,  that  the 
Prayer  Book  constantly  rehearses  the  Catholic 
doctrinal  interpretation  of  the  Holy  Scriptures 
before  the  worshippers,  and  puts  its  language  in 
the  mouths  of  both  priest  and  people ;  so  that  even 
if  an  individual  priest  should  teach  some  false  doc- 
trine, the  Church  services  furnish  the  antidote 
and  correction,  which  he  himself  is  obliged  to 
read  to  his  people.  The  liturgy  furnishes  the  con- 
gregation with  a  constant  standard  of  doctrine, 
by  which  they  can  test  the  preaching  of  an  individ- 
ual, and  determine  its  Scriptural  character.  The 
extempore  worship  of  Protestantism  furnishes  no 
such  safeguard  against  unscriptural  teaching  on 
the  part  of  its  ministers. 


218  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

To  put  the  case  in  a  few  words  in  conclusion: 
The  Protestant  method  of  getting  the  truth  is  indi- 
vidual interpretation  of  the  Holy  Scriptures; 
which  recognizes  no  central  teaching  authority, 
and  jDroduces  no  agTeement  among  Christians  as 
to  what  the  Scriptures  teach,  and  therefore  fur- 
nishes no  changeless  ground  of  certitude.  The 
Roman  Catholic  method,  as  we  shall  find,  is,  that 
truth  is  defined  by  the  infallible  pronouncements 
of  one  man  in  the  Church,  speaking  for  the 
Church;  for  which  method  we  find  neither  scrip- 
tural nor  primitive  authority  of  any  kind;  which 
breaks  down  in  practice;  and  which  furnishes 
no  groiind  of  certitude.  The  Catholic  Churchman, 
who  is  neither  Romanist  nor  Protestant,  accepts 
as  the  Revelation  of  God  the  Holy  Scriptures, 
as  interpreted  by  the  Fathers  of  the  Church,  and 
the  Catholic  doctrine  which  has  been  held  and 
taught  always  and  everywhere  from  the  first,  in 
the  Church,  and  has  been  voiced  by  general  coun- 
cils of  the  whole  Church,  and  formulated  in  the 
Catholic  Faith.  In  this  way,  and  in  this  way 
alone,  do  we  discover  any  changeless  ground  of  cer- 
titude, any  secure  assurance  that  what  we  hold 
is  the  revealed  truth  of  Almighty  God,  as  taught 
by  the  Son  of  God. 


CHAPTER  XV 


PAPAL  INFALLIBILITY 


CHE  Roman  Catholic  theory  of  determining  the 
truth  of  Revelation  is  expressed  in  what  is 
commonly  known  as  the  doctrine  of  Papal  Infalli- 
bility, a  doctrine  which  was  formally  announced  to 
the  Christian  world  by  the  Vatican  Council,  in 
July,  A.D.  1870.    The  statement  of  it  was  this : 

"It  is  a  dogma  divinely  revealed,  that  the 
Roman  Pontiff,  when  he  speaks  ex  Cathedra  (that 
is,  when,  in  discharge  of  the  office  of  pastor  and 
doctor  of  all  Christians  by  virtue  of  his  supreme 
Apostolic  authority,  he  defines  a  doctrine  regard- 
ing faith  and  morals  to  be  held  by  the  universal 
Church),  by  the  divine  assistance  promised  to  him 
in  blessed  Peter,  is  possessed  of  that  infallibility 
with  which  the  Divine  Redeemer  willed  that  His 
Church  should  be  endowed,  for  defining  doctrine 
regarding  faith  and  morals;  and  that  therefore, 
such  definitions  of  the  Roman  Pontiff  are  irre- 


220  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

fonnable  of  themselves;  and  not  from  the  consent 
of  the  Church."    This  is  the  Vatican  decree. 

JSTow  we  must  notice  carefully,  exactly  what 
this  means;  for  the  ordinary  Protestant  notion  of 
Papal  Infallibility,  is  a  mistake.  Many  Protest- 
ants imagine  that  Romans  claim  that  the  Pope  can- 
not be  mistaken  in  anything  he  says ;  or  worse  yet, 
that  he  claims  to  be  incapable  of  sin.  This  is  all 
nonsense.  The  claim  of  infallibility  is  this: 
That  when  the  Pope  speaks  with  a  certain  for- 
mality, as  the  divinely  appointed  head  of  the 
Church,  and  pronounces  on  questions  of  faith  and 
morals  for  the  benefit  of  the  whole  Church,  he  is 
saved  from  error  by  the  guidance  of  the  Holy 
Spirit.  Outside  of  such  formal  pronouncements, 
the  Pope  is  supposed  to  be  liable  to  error ;  that  is, 
when  he  teaches,  not  as  Pope,  but  as  private  doc- 
tor ;  and  certainly  no  Pope  ever  claimed  to  be  sin- 
less, at  any  time. 

It  is  claimed  that  the  Pope  of  Rome  is  the 
Vicar  of  Christ,  as  successor  of  St.  Peter,  and  the 
infallible  guide  in  faith  and  morals,  for  all  men, 
of  all  time.  Now  no  doubt  in  some  respects  it 
would  seem  like  a  very  desirable  thing,  to  be  able 
to  refer  all  complicated  questions  and  controversies 
at  once  to  the  decision  of  one  man,  who  would  be 
infallibly  guided  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  But  the 
question  is,  not  whether  it  would  be  desirable,  but 
simply  whether  God  has  provided  any  such  short 
and  easy  method  of  getting  rid  of  doubt,  and 
solving  difficulties,  and  so  allows  us  to  shirk  all 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  221 

moral  responsibility  for  the  effort  to  find  out  what 
is  the  truth,  in  some  more  indirect  fashion. 
God's  methods  are  effective;  but  they  are  seldom 
simple,  and  never  short  and  easy,  in  the  sense  of 
demanding  no  use  of  our  reason,  no  effort,  and 
no  patience.  Has  He  then,  conferred  the  gift  of 
infallibility  on  any  one  man  in  the  Church  ? 

We  have  already  seen  that  there  is  no  scriptural 
evidence  that  St.  Peter  and  his  successors  were 
appointed  heads  of  the  Church.  Most  certainly, 
no  promise  of  infallibility  was  made  to  St.  Peter 
personally.  So  far  as  the  Lord  promised  the 
guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  it  was  to  the  whole 
Church,  not  to  any  one  part  of  it,  and  much  less 
to  any  one  man  in  it.  Then,  too,  it  is  curious,  if 
for  nineteen  centuries  the  Popes  of  Rome  have 
been  infallible,  that  the  fact  should  not  have  been 
formally  proclaimed  to  the  whole  world  until  July 
in  1870,  as  an  article  of  Faith  divinely  revealed. 

If  the  doctrine  of  Papal  Infallibility  be  true, 
then  certainly  it  is  a  very  vital  matter;  and  one 
would  think  it  ought  to  have  been  asserted  plainly 
by  the  ancient  general  councils.  But  most  cer- 
tainly it  was  not.  Then  too,  if  it  was  the  Pope's 
function  to  pronounce  upon  doctrine  and  to  de- 
termine its  orthodoxy,  how  is  it  that  the  Popes 
did  not  formulate  the  creeds;  but  that  when  the 
Faith  required  further  definition  by  reason  of  a 
new  controversy,  it  was  necessary  to  call  a  general 
council,  and  to  consult  the  whole  Church,  at  an 


222  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

enormous  expenditure  of  time,   and  money,   and 
vitality  ? 

Probably  there  never  was  greater  doctrinal  dis- 
cussion and  confusion  in  the  Christian  Church 
than  in  the  second  century.  The  points  under 
discussion  at  that  time  were  fundamental.  The 
Creed  was  not  yet  fully  formulated,  and  the  canon 
of  Holy  Scripture  was  not  settled,  the  first  general 
council  had  not  yet  been  held.  Certainly  there 
was  great  need  of  infallible  papal  definitions,  if 
the  Church  was  to  determine  truth  by  their  aid. 

But  in  this  age,  there  is  not  the  slightest  evi- 
dence that  one  single  point  was  settled  by  any  such 
definition;  nor  of  any  supposition  that  any  truth 
could  be  so  settled. 

Take  again  the  time  of  the  Arian  heresy  in  the 
fourth  century,  when  the  whole  Church  was  dis- 
tracted by  the  denial  of  our  Lord's  deity.  The 
most  vital  of  Christian  truths  was  at  stake.  The 
whole  future  of  the  Church  depended  upon  the  set- 
tlement of  this  heresy.  No  situation  can  be  imag- 
ined, in  which  there  was  greater  need  of  an  author- 
itative papal  definition  to  restore  peace  and  safety 
to  the  Church;  and  yet  such  papal  decision  had 
nothing  whatever  to  do  with  the  suppression  of 
the  heresy,  for  the  matter  was  settled  by  a  general 
council,  called  by  the  Emperor  Constantino,  of 
which  Hosius  was  the  president.  Athanasius  of 
Alexandria,  as  we  found  in  the  last  chapter,  won 
the  victory  for  the  Church,  as  defender  of  the 
Faith ;  while  some  thirty  years  later  the  Pope  Li- 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  223 

berins,  signed  a  semi-Arian  creed,  and  repudiated 
Athanasius. 

In  the  Xlllth  chapter,  we  also  called  atten- 
tion to  the  fact  that  the  second  council  of  Constan- 
tinople in  381  settled  and  defined  the  doctrine 
concerning  the  deity  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  that 
the  Pope  was  not  even  represented  in  the  council. 
Thus  the  two  most  vital  points  of  Christian  doc- 
trine, at  times  of  the  Church's  most  critical  need, 
were  settled  by  general  councils ;  and  papal  defini- 
tions served  no  function  whatever.  Certainly  this 
ought  to  be  in  itself  decisive  as  against  the  claim 
that  papal  infallibility  is  the  source  from  which 
the  Church  receives  her  Faith. 

Surely  it  would  have  been  much  easier,  when 
these  heresies  sprang  up,  simply  to  refer  the 
matter  to  the  Pope,  and  get  an  ofiicial  pronounce- 
ment which  would  be  infallible,  and  from  which 
no  one  could  appeal.  And  yet  it  seemed  never  to 
occur  to  any  one  to  do  this,  during  many  centuries, 
when  the  Church  was  torn  and  distracted  by  false 
teachers  and  by  heresies,  and  when  the  function  of 
papal  infallibility  would  have  been  of  enormous 
service.  There  cannot  be  any  question  but  that 
Pope  Liberius  signed  an  heretical  creed,  and  that 
Pope  Honorius  was  a  Monothelite  heretic  and  was 
condemned  as  such  by  the  sixth  general  council, 
and  excommunicated.  It  would  be  an  easy  matter 
to  prove  that  various  Popes  have  contradicted  each 
other  in  their  formal  decisions,  times  without  num- 
ber ;  that  they  have  formally  committed  themselves 


224  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

to  palpable  errors  and  blunders;  and  that  the 
Church  has  not  hesitated  to  revise  their  definitions 
in  any  particular  case,  when  they  have  been  in  the 
wrong.  Of  course  it  will  be  replied  by  Romans, 
that  when  the  Popes  thus  erred  they  were  not 
speaking  ex  cathedra,  that  is,  with  the  formality 
necessary  to  infallibility;  but  that  they  erred 
merely  as  private  doctors,  as  ordinary  teachers, 
who  are  liable  to  mistakes. 

We  reply  that  these  pronouncements  have  been 
just  as  formal  as  the  Popes  could  make  them,  that 
they  have  been  thrown  into  the  form  of  decrees 
and  bulls  and  pronouncements  of  the  most  ofiicial 
and  technical  kind,  and  have  been  backed  up  and 
enforced  by  threats  of  anathema  and  excommuni- 
cation. It  is  impossible  to  imagine  how  an  in- 
fallible pronouncement  could  be  given  out  more 
officially,  or  more  formally.  So  we  ask.  How  are 
you  going  to  tell  which  pronouncements  are  infal- 
lible, and  which  are  not  ? 

And  this  brings  us  at  once  to  a  very  important 
fact;  namely,  that  Romans  themselves  are  not 
at  all  agreed  as  to  what  constitutes  an  infallible 
utterance.  What  does  Infallibility  mean  ?  Car- 
dinal Newman  gave  one  definition.  Cardinal  Man- 
ning, another,  another  writer  gives  six  possible 
meanings,  and  still  another  gives  several  others. 
Then  we  ask,  If  you  cannot  be  infallibly  sure  that 
in  any  given  case  the  Pope  is  speaking  infallibly, 
and  if  you  cannot  infallibly  define  just  what  infal- 
libility itself  means,  what  possible  use  is  an  in- 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  225 

fallible  pronouncement  of  any  sort?  Apparently 
the  Pope  himself  must  infallibly  declare  that  he 
is  declaring  infallibly.  But  how  do  you  know  that 
this  first  declaration,  is  itself  infallible?  Appar- 
ently some  infallible  authority  has  got  to  pro- 
nounce on  infallibility,  and  so  you  have  two  diffi- 
culties, instead  of  one.  When  Roman  Cath- 
olics are  pressed  with  the  difficulties,  they  are 
apt  to  admit  that  as  a  matter  of  fact  the  Pope 
has  spoken  infallibly  only  two  or  three  times ;  but 
if  this  be  true,  then  he  has  used  this  wonderful 
gift  only  two  or  three  times  in  nineteen  centuries. 
As  a  matter  of  fact  then,  has  the  infallibility  been 
of  any  earthly  use  as  a  guide  for  settling  the  multi- 
tude of  vital  questions,  which  have  clamored  for 
settlement,  in  every  age  of  the  Church's  life  ? 

To  assert  that  infallibility  is  the  God-given 
means  of  ascertaining  the  truth  for  the  Church 
in  matters  of  faith  and  morals,  and  yet  to  admit 
that  this  faculty  has  been  used  effectually  only  two 
or  three  times,  is  simply  to  make  the  doctrine  of 
infallibility  futile  in  the  extreme.  It  is  to  assert 
the  divine  creation,  of  an  enormous  inestimable 
power,  that  has  been  after  all  practically  useless. 
So  far  as  history  testifies,  no  vital  issue  was  ever 
settled  by  an  infallible  decree.  Some  Romans  go 
so  far  as  to  say  that  the  Pope  has  spoken  infal- 
libly only  once;  and  that,  when  Pius  IX,  in  1854, 
decreed  the  Immaculate  Conception  of  the  Blessed 
Virgin  Mary. 

It  is  said  by  Romans  that  when  the  Pope  pro- 


226  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

nounces  infallibly  upon  matters  of  faith  and 
morals,  he  does  not  teach  new  truth,  but  merely 
declares  explicitly,  what  has  always  been  held  im- 
plicitly by  the  Church  from  the  beginning.  But 
how  can  you  know  that  any  given  doctrine  was 
taught  implicitly,  that  is  informally,  from  the  be- 
ginning, when  there  is  no  mention  of  it  in  the  Holy 
Scriptures,  or  the  creeds,  or  the  early  Fathers,  or 
the  devotional  formularies  of  the  Church;  and 
when,  after  it  is  first  suggested,  it  is  condemned 
by  some  of  the  Popes,  and  is  controverted  by  great 
doctors,  long  before  it  gains  any  hold  in  the 
Church  ?  If  the  Pope  finally  pronounces  upon  it 
and  supjiorts  it,  then  he  certainly  adds  a  new  doc- 
trine to  the  Catholic  Faith;  and  who  can  tell 
where  such  a  process  shall  stop,  or  what  may  be  the 
Roman  creed  five  hundred  years  hence?  What 
security  is  there  for  knowing  the  truth  in  the  Ro- 
man Church  ? 

Suppose  for  a  moment  that  the  doctrine  of 
Papal  Infallibility  is  true,  has  it  secured  doctrinal 
stability  for  the  Roman  Church  ?  Has  it  taught 
always  and  everywhere  the  same  thing?  Let  us 
see  what  are  the  facts  of  the  case. 

The  old  doctrine  of  the  Church  was,  that  the 
invariableness  of  its  teaching  rested  on  two  things : 
the  Holy  Scriptures  as  interpreted  by  the  Apostolic 
Fathers,  and  the  Catholic  teachings  of  the  whole 
Church,  everywhere  from  the  first.  These  two 
things  furnish  an  invariable  standard  by  which 
any  one  doctrine  may  be  tested.    But  the  decisions 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  227 

of  the  Pope  of  Rome,  as  infallible  teacher  in  faith 
and  morals,  are,  as  the  decree  says,  "irreformable 
of  themselves  and  not  from  the  consent  of  the 
Church."  That  is,  after  he  has  cut  himself  loose 
from  the  Bible  and  the  Church,  there  is  nothing 
left  by  which  the  Pope's  definitions  can  be  tested. 

The  first  example  of  a  papal  definition  of  doe- 
trine  made  independently  of  a  council  occurred  in 
1854,  when,  under  Jesuit  influence.  Pope  Pius 
IX.  declared  that  the  doctrine  that  the  Blessed 
Virgin  was  "preserved  in  the  first  instant  of  her 
conception  from  all  stain  of  original  sin,  .  .  . 
was  revealed  by  God,  and  is  therefore  to  be  firmly 
and  steadfastly  believed  by  all  the  faithful." 

We  must  be  careful  to  note  exactly  what  this 
doctrine  means  and  involves.  Anglican  Church- 
men do  not  deny  that  the  Blessed  Virgin  may  have 
been  so  sanctified  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  that  she  was 
preserved  from  actually  committing  sin,  though 
this  is  merely  a  pious  opinion.  What  the  doctrine 
of  the  Immaculate  Conception  afiirms  is,  that  she 
did  not  inherit  original  sin,  a  sinful  nature,  the 
taint  which  has  been  transmitted  from  Adam ;  and 
if  this  be  true,  then  it  would  seem  to  follow  that 
the  Blessed  Virgin,  and  not  our  Lord,  is  the  start- 
ing point  of  our  redemption ;  the  beginning  of  the 
new  humanity,  the  second  Adam ;  and  that  the  in- 
herited taint  of  sin  was  cut  off  by  Mary,  not  by 
Christ ;  and  that  from  Mary  we  inherit  the  new  na- 
ture, rather  than  from  Christ.  Now  of  this  doc- 
trine, there  is  not  the  slightest  hint  in  the  Bible ; 


228  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

and  when  it  first  began  to  be  taught,  it  was  contro- 
verted and  disputed.  St.  Ambrose,  St.  Augustine, 
and  St.  Thomas  Aquinas,  taught  the  contrai*y ;  and 
the  whole  Greek  Church  has  always  repudiated  it. 
It  virtually  contradicts  one  of  our  Lord's  unique 
attributes,  namely,  that  He  alone  was  bom  without 
taint  of  sin. 

If  this  doctrine  be  true,  then  salvation  begins 
with  the  Blessed  Virgin,  rather  than  with  Christ ; 
and  yet  this  doctrine  was  proclaimed  in  1854,  as  a 
dogma  divinely  revealed. 

If  it  is  the  function  of  the  infallible  voice  to 
teach  the  truth,  it  must  equally  be  the  function  of 
such  a  voice  to  condemn  that  which  imperils,  or 
denies,  the  truth ;  and  as  a  matter  of  fact,  the  Popes 
of  Kome  have  been  very  free  to  condemn  that  which 
they  believed  to  be  error. 

Let  us  take,  now,  that  peculiarity  of  the  Eo- 
man  Church  which  to  an  Anglo-Catholic  Church- 
man is  perhaps  the  worst  feature  of  modern  Ro- 
man error,  namely,  the  so-called  "Cultus  of  the 
Blessed  Virgin  Mary."  Anglicans  admit  at  once, 
and  teach,  that  the  Blessed  Virgin  is  worthy  of  all 
possible  reverence  and  love  which  one  human  being- 
can  pay  another,  simply  because  God  has  chosen 
her  to  be  the  mother  of  the  Son  of  God,  His  in- 
carnate Son.  She  is  thus  the  most  exalted,  the 
purest,  the  most  holy  of  women,  the  first  of  saints : 
and  so  worthy  of  "all  but  adoring  love."  Roman 
Catholics  will  tell  you  that  they  merely  ask  the 
Blessed  Virgin  Mary  to  pray  for  them,  as  they 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  229 

would  ask  any  saint  to  pray  for  them;  and  thai 
they  honor  her,  because  in  exalting  her  they  indi- 
rectly bear  witness  to  the  truth  of  the  doctrine  of 
the  Incarnation.  But  is  this  a  true  statement  of 
the  case  ? 

Is  the  Cultus  of  the  Blessed  Virgin  confined 
within  these  limits  ?  Most  certainly  the  apostolic, 
primitive  Church  believed  in  the  doctrine  of  the 
Incarnation,  and  no  definition  of  the  Church  has 
ever  gone  beyond  St.  Paul's  statement  of  the  doc- 
trine ;  and  yet  there  is  not  the  slightest  hint  in 
any  of  the  writings  of  the  Apostles,  of  anything 
remotely  resembling  the  modern  Cultus  of  the 
Blessed  Virgin. 

In  1803,  the  Eoman  congregation  of  Rites  at 
Rome  decreed  that  in  the  writings  of  St.  Alphonsus 
Liguori,  there  is  not  one  word  that  can  justly  be 
found  fault  with.  Pope  Pius  IX.  made  Ligmori 
a  Doctor  of  the  Church  on  this  supposition,  and 
therefore  approved  his  writings. 

Among  these  faultless  writings,  there  is  a  book 
called  the  "Glories  of  Mary,"  a  formal  theological 
work  in  which  we  read : 

"Queen,  Mother,  and  Spouse  of  the  King:  to 
her  belong  dominion  and  power  over  all  creatures. 
She  is  Queen  of  mercy,  as  Jesus  is  King  of  justice. 
In  the  Franciscan  chronicles  it  is  narrated  that 
brother  Leon  once  saw  a  red  ladder  on  the  top  of 
which  was  Jesus  Christ ;  and  a  white  one  on  the 
top  of  which  was  His  Most  Holy  Mother;  and 
he  saw  some  one  who  tried  to  ascend  the  red  ladder, 


230  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

and  they  mounted  a  few  steps  and  fell ;  they  tried 
again  and  again  fell.  They  were  then  advised  to 
go  and  try  the  white  ladder,  and  by  that  one  they 
easily  ascended:  for  our  Blessed  Lady  stretched 
out  her  hands,  and  helped  them,  and  so  they  got 

safely  to  Heaven Mary  is  our  only  refuge^ 

help,  and  asylum.  God  before  the  birth  of  Mary 
complained  by  the  mouth  of  the  prophet  Ezekiel, 
that  there  was  no  one  to  rise  up  and  withhold  Him 
from  chastising  sinners ;  but  that  He  could  find  no 
one,  for  this  office  was  reserved  for  our  Blessed 
Lady,  who  withholds  His  arm  until  He  is  pacified. 
Often  we  shall  be  heard  more  quickly,  and  be  thus 
preserved,  if  we  have  recourse  to  Mary  and  call 
upon  her  name,  than  we  should  if  we  called  on 
the  Name  of  Jesus  our  Saviour.  Many  things  are 
asked  from  God,  and  are  not  granted;  they  are 
asked  from  Mary,  and  obtained.  At  the  com- 
mand of  the  Virgin  all  things  obey,  even  God.  The 
salvation  of  all  depends  on  their  being  favored 
and  protected  by  Mary.  He  who  is  protected  by 
Mary  will  be  saved ;  but  he  who  is  not  will  be  lost. 
Mary  has  only  to  speak  and  her  Son  executes  all." 

Such  is  Liguori's  teaching  under  the  Pope's 
sanction. 

The  very  last  words  which  the  Roman  ritual 
puts  into  the  mouth  of  a  dying  man,  are  these: 
"Mary,  Mother  of  Grace,  Mother  of  Mercy,  do 
thou  protect  me  from  the  foe,  and  receive  me  in 
the  hour  of  death." 

Whatever  explanations  Romans  may  give  of 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  231 

their  prayers  to  the  Blessed  Virgin,  the  fact  still 
remains,  that  precisely  such  prayers  as  are  ad- 
dressed to  God,  are  addressed  to  her.  This  is  ob- 
vious from  what  has  been  given;  and  all  this 
amounts  to  a  revolution  of  the  Christian  Faith,  in 
making  Mary,  a  more  than  half  divine  mediatrix. 
There  is  not  one  word  in  the  Holy  Scriptures  to 
sanction  this  cultus.  The  Bible  does  call  her 
"Blessed  among  women,"  "The  Mother  of  the 
Lord,"  and  asserts  that  she  was  "full  of  Grace," 
"highly  favored,"  and  that  the  Lord  as  a  child, 
but  only  during  His  childhood,  was  subject  to  her. 
But  our  Lord  said,  when  some  one  extolled  His 
Mother,  "yea,  rather  blessed  are  they  that  hear 
the  Word  and  keep  it."  And  at  the  marriage  of 
Cana,  our  Lord  refused  to  permit  even  His  Mother 
to  suggest  to  Him  what  He  should  do.  From 
Whitsunday,  when  the  Church  begins  its  work, 
there  is  no  further  mention  of  the  Blessed  Virgin 
in  the  Bible.  Nothing  whatever,  is  said  of  her. 
If  we  turn  to  the  ^vritings  of  the  Fathers,  we  find 
that  there  is  nothing  in  the  least  justifying  the 
Roman  doctrine,  for  over  four  or  five  hundred 
years,  in  what  they  wrote,  and  that  when  it  first 
began  to  be  broached,  it  was  controverted  as  a 
novelty  and  a  heresy. 

But  the  dreadful  thing  about  this  doctrine  is, 
that  it  ascribes  powers  and  attributes  to  the  Blessed 
Virgin,  which  belong  to  God  alone;  it  represents 
the  Lord  Christ  as  stern  and  hard,  and  the  Blessed 
Virgin  as  kind  and  loving;  it  makes  her  a  me- 


232  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

diatrix  between  lis  and  Christ,  and  makes  Ilim 
alter  His  will  at  her  demand.  The  Blessed  Vir- 
gin is  said  actually  to  have  a  coordinate  share  in 
our  redemption,  with  the  Lord  Christ  Himself. 
Dr.  Pusey  in  his  Eirenicon,  quotes  abundant  proof 
of  this  fact,  as  for  example,  from  De  Salazar  of 
the  Roman  Church  in  Spain,  as  follows : 

"And  since  she  had  this  in  common  with 
Christ,  that  she  is  said  really  and  perfectly  to  have 
given  and  offered  the  price  of  our  redemption" 
{i.  e.,  her  Son),  "therefore  she  bears,  together  with 
Him,  all  the  titles  and  names  which  are  wont  to 
be  ascribed  to  Christ,  and  is  rightly  called  Re- 
demptress,  Restoress,  Mediatress,  Authoress,  and 
cause  of  ou*r  salvation"  (Eirenicon,  p.  157-158). 

Again,  in  the  Encyclical  of  1849  Pope  Pius 
IX.,  addressing  the  whole  Roman  Church,  we 
read:  "Ye  know  very  well,  venerable  brethren, 
that  the  whole  of  our  confidence  is  placed  in  the 
most  Holy  Virgin,  since  God  has  placed  in  Mary 
the  fulness  of  all  good,  that  accordingly  we  may 
know,  that  if  there  is  any  hope  in  us,  if  any  grace, 
if  any  salvation,  it  redounds  to  us  from  her;  be- 
cause such  is  His  will,  who  hath  willed  that  we 
should  have  everything  from  Mary"  (Eirenicon, 
p.  123). 

Surely  the  witness  of  a  Pope  is  unimpeachable 
as  to  what  is  the  authorized  teaching  in  the  Roman 
Church. 

Of  course  there  are  other  points  of  doctrine  in 
which  the  Anglican  Church  differs  radically  from. 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  233 

Rome;  but  we  are  dealing  at  this  point,  not  so 
much  with  individual  doctrines,  as  with  the  Bo- 
man  pHnciple  of  defining  doctrine,  and  we  have  re- 
ferred to  the  Cultus  of  the  Blessed  Virgin  merely 
to  show  that  the  Roman  theory  of  getting  the 
truth  through  the  infallible  pronouncements  of  one 
man,  fails  utterly  in  protecting  the  Church  from 
serious  error;  and  leaves  us  in  entire  doubt  as  to 
what  will  be  the  faith  of  the  Roman  Church  in 
the  future.  There  is  no  secure  anchorage  of  the 
Faith  apart  from  the  witness  of  Holy  Scripture 
as  interpreted  by  the  Fathers  and  the  universal  tes- 
timony of  the  Church  from  the  first.  Rome's 
boast  of  always  teaching  the  same  thing,  is  easily 
proved  to  be  futile,  when  she  is  brought  to  the  test 
of  universal  Catholic  tradition,  and  the  distinctly 
traceable  growth  of  false  doctrine  from  age  to  age. 
Rome  is  fond  of  taunting  us  with  the  fact  that 
there  are  wide  differences  of  opinion  tolerated  in 
the  Anglo-Catholic  Church ;  but  the  difference  is 
a  thousand  times  less,  than  the  difference  between 
the  teaching  of  the  Roman  Church  to-day,  and  the 
Catholic  Church  of  the  past.  The  Anglican 
Church  may  tolerate  important  difference  of  be- 
lief; but  she  certainly  is  not  committed  to  the 
principle  of  development,  nor  to  the  doctrine  of 
infallibility,  which  render  all  security  impossible. 
Roman  Catholics  sometimes  admit  that  the 
Anglican  Church  teaches  "most  Catholic  doc- 
trines," but  they  afiirm  that  Anglicans  select  these 
doctrines  from  the  Catholic  Faith,  by  their  individ- 


234  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

ual  private  judgment;  whereas  the  only  true  basis 
of  Catholic  belief,  is  authority;  and  assert  that 
unless  Catholic  doctrine  is  accepted  as  defined  by 
authority,  holding  and  teaching  it,  it  is  a  purely 
Protestant  proceeding,  and  furnishes  no  basis 
whatever  for  certitude.  The  reply  to  this  is  very 
obvious.  Of  course  Roman  Catholics  mean  by 
"authority,"the  authority  of  a  papal  definition 
"irreformable  of  itself,"  "independently  of  the 
Church" ;  whereas  Anglicans  mean  by  authority, 
the  authority  of  the  Catholic  Church,  as  expressed 
in  Holy  Scriptures  and  the  Catholic  Creeds  and 
the  consensus  of  tradition,  which  has  been  voiced 
by  the  general  councils.  Even  as  late  as  1851, 
Dr.  Wiseman,  Cardinal  Archbishop  of  West- 
minster, could  write  as  to  the  method  of  settling 
disputes  in  matters  of  faith : 

"The  method  pursued  would  be,  to  examine 
most  accurately  the  writings  of  the  Fathers  of  the 
Church,  to  ascertain  what  in  different  countries, 
and  in  different  ages,  was  by  them  used;  and  the 
collecting  the  suffrages  of  all  the  world,  and  of  all 
times — not  indeed  to  create  a  new  article  of  Faith 
— but  to  define  what  has  already  been  the  Faith  of 
the  Catholic  Church.  It  is  conducted  in  every  in- 
stance as  a  matter  of  historical  inquiry;  and  all 
human  prudence  is  used  to  arrive  at  a  judicious  de- 


cision." 


Thus  the  Roman  Cardinal  expresses  the  An- 
glican position  or  method  of  determining  what  is 
of  authority.     We  have  already  shown  that  the 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  233 

deity  of  our  Lord  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  were 
defined  by  the  authority  of  general  councils  and 
that  a  papal  definition  had  nothing  whatever  to  do 
with  formulating  the  Church's  faith,  in  these  vital 
matters. 

Our  reply  then,  is,  that  Anglicans  accept  the 
Catholic  Faith  in  its  entirety,  on  the  authority  of 
the  Catholic  Church,  as  the  Faith  is  set  forth  by 
the  Church  itself ;  and  it  is  exactly  for  this  reason, 
that  Anglicans  refuse  to  accept  the  definitions  of 
one  man  in  the  Church,  independently  of  the 
Church. 

Moreover,  previous  to  1854,  when  the  Pope 
defined  the  doctrine  of  the  Immaculate  Conception, 
not  one  single  doctrine  of  the  Koman  Church 
had  ever  been  received  by  papal  definition,  inde- 
pendently of  a  council ;  and  so  when  Romans 
speak  of  "authority,"  they  use  the  word  in  a 
strictly  modern  and  limited  sense,  which  is  Bo- 
man,  but  not  Catholic.  To  assert  that  there  can 
be  no  Catholic  authority  apart  from  papal  defini- 
tions, is  historically  so  inaccurate  as  to  be  absurd. 

Again,  Romans  often  point  to  differences  of 
opinion  which  are  tolerated  in  the  Anglican 
Church,  as  if  the  Church  in  tolerating  them  com- 
mitted herself  to  error,  or  sanctioned  heresy.  There 
are  two  or  three  things  to  be  said  in  answer  to  this. 
First,  the  actual  doctrinal  differences  held  among 
Anglicans  are  constantly  exaggerated  by  Romans, 
for  purposes  that  of  course  are  quite  obvious. 
Then,  we  are  not  disposed  to  deny  that  there  is, 


236  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

at  present,  a  lack  of  doctrinal  discipline  in  the 
Anglo-Catholic  Church,  which  is  greatly  to  be  re- 
gretted. But  we  affirm  that  this  is  a  matter  which 
will  correct  itself,  as  time  goes  on,  because  the 
teaching  of  the  Church  itself,  in  its  authorized 
formularies  is  conspicuously  orthodox,  so  that  no 
charge  of  heresy  can  be  brought  against  it. 

Moreover  this  is  exactly  the  reply  of  the 
Roman  Church,  under  certain  circumstances,  when 
she  is  charged  by  Anglicans  with  teaching  certain 
false  doctrines.  For  example:  some  years  ago. 
Dr.  Pusey  published  quotations  from  accredited 
Roman  writers,  giving  certain  doctrines  concern- 
ing the  Blessed  Virgin,  which  seemed  to  be  but  lit- 
tle short  of  blasphemous.  Cardinal  Newman 
replied,  that  we  must  distinguish  between  that  doc- 
trine which  was  tolerated  by  the  Church,  and  that 
which  was  de  fide,  i.e.,  the  teaching  of  the  Church 
itself;  between  individual  errors,  and  corporate 
definitions ;  and  if  such  distinction  is  legitimate 
in  freeing  the  Roman  Church  from  the  charge  of 
error,  why  is  not  the  same  distinction  legitimate 
when  applied  to  Anglican  teaching?  Certainl}'^ 
no  eccentric  teacher  in  the  Anglican  Church  has 
ever  taught  anything  much  worse  than  the  Co- 
presence  of  the  Blessed  Virgin  Mary  in  the  Sac- 
rament of  the  Altar,  which  has  been  at  least  sug- 
gested in  the  Roman  communion. 


CHAPTER  XVI 

THE   MINISTRY   OF   THE    CHUKCH 

77 IE  HAVE  found  how  the  Church  receives 
W  and  defines  the  Revelation  of  Jesus  Christ, 
through  the  guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Now 
it  is  necessary  to  find  how  and  through  whom  she 
teaches  the  faith.  We  must  remember  that  the 
Church  is  not  merely  a  library  of  inspired  books 
and  documents  for  the  consultation  of  students  and 
experts,  but  it  is  a  great  living  organism,  and 
must  teach  hy  a  living  voice  in  all  ages. 

Our  Lord  said,  Go  preach  the  Gospel  to  every 
creature;  and  men  were  told  not  merely  to  read 
the  Bible,  but  to  hear  the  Church ;  and  so  it  is  ob- 
vious that  there  must  be  some  ministerial  order  of 
men  who  shall  be  authorized  to  teach  the  Faith, 
and  bring  it  to  bear  directly  on  the  hearts  and  lives 
of  men,  by  personal  witness,  imto  the  uttermost 
parts  of  the  earth.  If  laymen  are  to  feel  any 
obligation  to  follow  and  obey  this  teaching,  the 
teachers  must  be  able  to  show  that  they  have  re- 


238  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

ceived  a  commission  from  the  Lord  Christ,  author- 
izing them  to  teach  in  His  Name.  When  a  man 
is  made  a  minister  of  Christ,  the  Holy  Spirit  does 
two  things:  First,  he  puts  the  thought  into  the 
man's  heart,  that  he  ought  to  become  a  priest ;  and 
thus  the  man  is  impelled  to  seek  Holy  Orders. 
This  is  God's  call,  or  vocation.  But  vocation  does 
not  give  authority  to  preach.  Then  secondly,  the 
Holy  Spirit  gives  the  man  the  grace  of  Holy 
Orders,  the  stamp  of  priestly  character,  through 
ordination;  by  which  our  Lord's  commission  to 
teach  is  transferred  to  him  by  the  Church,  and  this 
is  called  mission.  These  two  things  are  necessary ; 
the  man  must  be  called,  and  he  must  be  sent. 

The  ordinary  Protestant  idea  seems  to  be,  that 
vocation,  or  the  inward  call,  makes  a  man  a  minis- 
ter of  God ;  and  that  ordination  is  simply  the  pub- 
lic act  on  the  part  of  the  congregation,  or  of  the 
Church  officers,  by  which  (after  the  man  has  been 
examined  by  them)  they  certify  to  their  belief 
that  he  has  been  truly  called  of  God  to  preach 
the  Gospel. 

In  other  words,  ministerial  character  or  author- 
ity, according  to  Protestants,  really  depends  on 
vocation  or  the  inward  call,  and  not  primarily  on 
ordination.  A  Catholic  Churchman  replies  to  this 
assumption,  that  the  inward  call  may  be  sufficient 
evidence  to  the  man  himself  that  he  is  to  be  a 
minister  of  Christ;  but  it  certainly  cannot  be  to 
anybody  else,  because  no  one  can  see  his  heart. 
Moreover,  after  a  while  the  man  may  find  that  he 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  239 

was  mistaken  about  the  inward  call.  Was  he  then 
really  a  minister  of  Christ,  and  are  we  to  be  left 
in  utter  uncertainty  about  it  ? 

We  have  found  that  the  Church  is  a  great 
visible  Kingdom,  and  it  follows  that  if  we  are  to 
know  who  are  its  visible  officers,  there  must  be 
some  visible  sign  or  act  which  we  can  see,  by 
which  the  officer  is  commissioned;  otherwise  we 
cannot  be  sure  of  his  official  character,  ^o  man 
is  an  officer  of  a  Kingdom  just  because  he  thinks 
he  is,  or  because  he  believes  that  God  wants  him 
to  be,  or  that  he  ought  to  be.  The  inward  call  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  by  its  very  nature,  is  out  of  the 
reach  of  proof  or  disproof;  and  so  cannot  be  of 
any  use  to  us,  however  much  it  may  satisfy  the 
man  himself.  There  must  be  something  else  be- 
sides the  inward  call. 

Take  ordination,  then,  by  delegates  from  the 
congregation.  Does  this  give  ministerial  author- 
ity? Certainly  not;  because  laymen  cannot  pos- 
sibly give  that  which  they  never  had,  that  is,  min- 
isterial authority.  A  stream  cannot  rise  higher 
than  its  source ;  and  a  layman  who  is  ordained  by 
a  layman,  must  be  a  layman  still. 

If,  then,  the  inward  call  does  not  convey 
authority,  and  the  congregation  of  laymen  cannot 
give  it,  surely  it  must  come  from  the  persons  who 
do  the  ordaining,  who  were  themselves  officials  of 
the  Church.  Very  well;  now  the  question  is, 
where  did  they  get  it  ?  And  if  we  reply,  as  appar- 
ently we  must,  that  they  got  it  from  those  who 


240  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

ordained  them,  then  certainly  we  are  at  once  com- 
mitted to  the  principle  of  authority  transmitted 
from  person  to  person,  through  ordination.  In 
other  words,  we  virtually  hold  a  doctrine  of  Apos- 
tolic Succession. 

Now  a  chain  cannot  hang  in  mid-air;  it  must 
be  attached  somewhere,  to  some  point  of  suspen- 
sion. Transmitted  authority  must  start  from  some 
original  source;  and  if,  as  we  found,  it  cannot 
begin  with  a  layman,  where  can  it  begin,  short 
of  the  Lord  Christ,  who,  as  we  have  found,  chose 
twelve  men,  and  ordained  them  by  an  outward 
sign,  and  said  to  them,  "As  My  Father  hath 
sent  Me,  even  so  send  I  you"  ?  If  you  can  trace 
your  ministerial  pedigree  back  to  this  source,  then 
you  can  certainly  prove  your  right  to  teach  in 
Christ's  Name,  but  not  otherwise ;  and  so  a  Church- 
man says  to  a  man  who  claims  to  be  a  minister  on 
any  other  basis,  "You  may  be  a  very  good  and 
holy  man.  We  do  not  question  this  in  the  least. 
You  may  also  be  called  in  your  heart  by  the  Holy 
Spirit,  to  preach  the  Gospel.  We  cannot  know 
anything  about  that,  one  way  or  the  other.  What 
we  want,  is  the  credentials  of  your  official  author- 
ity. You  may  be  called.  You  must  be  sent. 
WHO  SENT  Your 

This  question  is  far  more  vital  than  at  first  it 
seems ;  because,  how  is  any  layman  to  know  that  he 
fulfils  his  duty  in  obeying  and  supporting  those 
whom  the  Lord  sends  to  represent  Him,  when  he 
obeys  and  supports  you  ?    How  is  he  to  be  sure  of 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  241 

receiving  the  grace  of  valid  sacraments  at  your 
hands,  unless  you  prove  in  some  way  that  you  in- 
herit the  Lord's  commission  to  administer  Sacra- 
ments in  His  Name  ?  The  Government  of  the 
United  States  cannot  be  sure  that  it  is  dealing 
directly  with  the  Empire  of  Great  Britain,  through 
its  Ambassador  in  Washington,  until  the  creden- 
tials of  the  Ambassador's  authority  have  been 
passed  upon  and  certified.  How  is  any  layman 
to  have  any  security  of  hearing  the  truth  from  you, 
unless  you  are  sent  by  the  great  teaching  body 
which  the  Holy  Spirit  guides,  and  which  must  put 
the  truth  in  your  mouth,  and  see  that  you  teach  it, 
just  as  it  is  given  you  to  teach  ? 

You  must  claim  to  speak  by  some  authority. 
If  you  come  to  me  in  your  own  name,  then  you 
cannot  expect  me  to  listen  to  you,  any  more  than 
to  any  other  layman.  If  on  the  other  hand,  you 
come  and  claim  to  speak  in  the  Name  of  the  Lord 
Christ  (and  this  is  a  tremendous  and  very  awful 
claim  for  any  living  man  to  make),  then  you  are 
bound  to  give  me  some  reasonable  credentials  of 
your  authority  so  to  do;  credentials  which  are 
tangible,  and  subject  to  ordinary  laws  of  evidence, 
which  I  can  test,  accept,  or  reject,  as  I  deem  best. 
Before  I  can  render  you  my  allegiance,  as  repre- 
senting the  Lord,  I  must  be  sure  of  your  authority, 
beyond  a  doubt. 

To  this  demand,  a  Protestant  may  reply.  Even 
if  we  cannot  trace  our  ministry  back  to  Christ's 
original    commission,   you    must    admit    that    the 


242  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

Lord  has  blessed  our  ministerial  work,  and  so  has 
accepted  us,  as  His  servants,  whether  we  inherit 
an  outward  commission,  or  not.' 

We  reply  that  when  God  established  a  new  min- 
istry of  any  sort.  He  always  gave  its  members  a 
special  gift,  to  prove  their  authority  before  men. 
He  enabled  them  to  work  miracles.  Moses  proved 
his  commission  by  working  miracles ;  the  Christian 
Apostles  proved  their  commission  at  first  by  work- 
ing miracles,  and  the  commission  being  thus  as- 
serted, the  power  was  taken  away.  God's  blessing 
lupon  conscientious  work  does  not  make  a  man  a 
minister,  otherwise  all  earnest  men  who  did  any 
religious  work,  would  be  ministers,  de  facto. 

I^ow  we  must  turn  to  the  Holy  Scriptures,  and 
find  out,  if  we  can,  how  the  Christian  ministry 
originated,  what  was  its  commission,  and  how  it 
was  to  be  perpetuated  from  one  age  to  another ;  and 
it  will  be  necessary  to  repeat  here,  part  of  what 
was  said  in  the  Vth  chapter,  concerning  our 
Lord's  acts  and  words  in  selecting  and  sending 
the  ministry  of  His  Church. 

He  begins  by  selecting  twelve  men,  to  whom 
He  gives  the  technical  name  of  Apostles.  They 
are  His  constant  companions,  and  receive  His  con- 
stant instructions.  He  promises  them,  that  He 
will  build  His  Church,  and  will  ratify  in  heaven 
their    ministerial    discipline    on    earth;    saying, 

*  Then  apparently  we  must  wait  to  see  whether  a  man 
succeeds  or  fails  before  we  can  determine  whether  he  is  a 
minister  or  not.     How  much  success  settles  the  question? 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  243 

"Whatsoever  ve  shall  bind  on  earth,  shall  be  bound 
in  heaven ;  and  whatsoever  je  shall  loose  on  earth 
shall  be  loosed  in  heaven"  (Matt,  xviii.  18). 

After  He  rose  from  the  dead,  on  Easter  night, 
He  said  to  them,  "Peace  be  unto  you:  as  the 
Father  hath  sent  Me,  even  so  send  I  you.  And 
when  He  had  said  this.  He  breathed  on  them,  and 
saith  unto  them.  Receive  ye  the  Holy  Ghost; 
whosesoever  sins  ye  forgive  they  are  forgiven  unto 
them ;  and  whosesoever  sins  ye  retain,  they  are 
retained"  (John  xx.  21).  Just  before  our  Lord's 
Ascension  He  said  to  them  again,  "All  authority 
hath  been  given  unto  Me  in  heaven  and  on  earth. 
Go  ye  therefore,  and  make  disciples  of  all  the 
nations,  baptizing  them  in  the  Name  of  the  Father 
and  of  the  Son  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost:  teaching 
them  to  observe  all  things  whatsoever  I  commanded 
you ;  and  lo !  I  am  with  you  always,  even  unto  the 
end  of  the  world"  (Matt,  xxviii.  18-20). 

Again  He  says  to  them,  "Ye  shall  receive 
power,  when  the  Holy  Ghost  is  come  upon  you: 
and  ye  shall  be  My  witnesses,  both  in  Jerusalem, 
and  in  all  Judea  and  Samaria,  and  unto  the  utter- 
most parts  of  the  earth" (  Acts  i.  8). 

Notice  that  our  Lord  ordained  these  men  by  an 
outward  sign  (breathing  on  them),  with  ordaining 
words,  and  a  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  and  thus  He 
conveys  to  them  His  own  authority,  commissioning 
them  to  remit  sins,  to  baptize,  to  teach;  and  He 
promises  to  be  with  them  alway,  unto  the  end  of 
the  world.    Before  this,  He  had  promised  to  ratify 


244  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

ill  heaven  their  exercise  of  discipline  in  the 
Church,  and  had  bade  them  offer  the  Holy  Eucha- 
rist in  remembrance  of  Him.  This  endowment 
of  authority  to  represent  Him,  to  teach  in  His 
Name,  was  so  real,  that  He  could  say  to  them,  "He 
that  heareth  you,  heareth  Me ;  and  He  that  despis- 
eth  you,  despiseth  Me."  Here,  then,  we  have  the 
original  and  only  historic  commission  of  the  Chris- 
tian ministry,  conferred  by  the  Lord  Himself; 
the  one  source  and  pledge  of  its  authority. 

Was  this  authority  to  be  transmitted  by  these 
men  to  others,  so  that  the  ministry  should  perpetu- 
ate itself  from  age  to  age  ?  Notice  our  Lord  prom- 
ises to  be  with  them,  and  they  were  to  witness  to 
Him  unto  the  uttermost  parts  of  the  earth  in  place, 
and  to  the  end  of  the  world  in  time.  Then  if  this 
be  so,  they  must  live  always,  and  go  everywhere, 
or  else  the  order  to  which  they  belonged  must  con- 
tinue always  and  extend  everywhere  throughout 
the  world. 

The  continuity  of  the  Apostolic  order  is  in- 
volved in  the  terms  of  the  Apostles'  commission. 
And  moreover,  they  unquestionably  believed  that 
it  was  to  be  continuous,  for  immediately  after  the 
Lord's  Ascension  they  begin  at  once  to  expand  the 
ministry,  as  if  by  His  express  direction,  electing 
Matthias  to  the  "apostleship"  (Acts  i.  25).  Paul 
and  Barnabas  are  afterwards  added  to  the  twelve. 
After  Pentecost,  they  ordain  seven  deacons,  and 
elders  in  every  city;  and  so  we  have  the  three 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  245 

orders  of  the  Apostolic  ministry :  Apostles,  Elders, 
and  Deacons. 

We  have  a  plain  instance  of  the  transfer  of  the 
Apostolic  office,  from  the  Apostles  to  the  second 
generation  of  Apostles  (so  to  speak),  when  St. 
Paul  ordains  Timothy,  by  laying  on  of  hands,  and 
says  to  him,  ''Stir  up  the  gift  that  is  in  thee 
THROUGH  the  putting  on  of  my  hands"  .  .  .  "given 
thee  WITH  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  pres- 
bytery" (II.  Tim.  i.  6). 

That  is,  the  ordination  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
is  conveyed  through  St.  Paul's  Apostolic  hands, 
while  the  presbytery  lay  on  their  hands  with  him 
as  a  sign  of  their  assent  to  the  ordination.  This 
is  the  custom  of  the  Church  to-day.  St.  Paul  also 
ordains  Titus,  and  to  both  Timothy  and  Titus, 
he  gives  authority  to  ordain,  charge,  and  rebuke 
elders  or  presbyters,  and  to«  superintend  the  doc- 
trine and  conduct  of  Presbyters  and  Deacons;  in 
short,  what  amounts  to  episcopal  authority,  over 
both  Elders  and  Deacons.  So  if  Timothy  and  Ti- 
tus were  not  Bishops,  their  commission,  and  their 
position  in  the  Church,  is  wholly  inexplicable. 
The  ancient  historians  agree  that  Timothy  was 
Bishop  of  Ephesus,  and  Titus  of  Crete. 

In  the  Book  of  the  Revelation  of  St.  John,  each 
one  of  the  seven  Churches  of  Asia  is  represented 
as  having  a  chief  pastor,  who  is  called  an  Angel  or 
Messenger;  who  is  held  responsible  for  all  the 
clergy  in  his  city ;  and  who  could  not  thus  be  held 
responsible,  unless  he  was  in  a  position  of  author- 


246  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

ity  over  them,  and  exercised  episcopal  supervision 
(Rev.  ii.  1). 

If  ft  is  said  that  in  the  New  Testament  the 
names  bishop  and  presbyter  are  sometimes  applied 
to  the  same  person,  and  that  the  inference  is  that 
all  presbyters  were  bishops,  or  that  there  were  no 
bishops  at  all,  we  reply,  that  a  confusion  of  names, 
is  not  necessarily  a  confusion  of  things;  and  that 
we  are  not  after  names,  but  facts ;  and  that  if  an 
order  of  men  be  given  episcopal  oversight  over 
presbyters  or  elders,  we  have  the  unquestioned  fact 
of  Episcopacy,  and  it  matters  not  an  atom  what 
you  call  that  order,  as  long  as  it  exists,  and  exer- 
cises distinct  functions  as  an  order,  superior  to 
Presbyters.  At  first  the  officers  of  the  Church 
seem  to  have  been  called  Apostles,  Elders,  and 
Deacons ;  and  then,  later,  the  term  Apostle  was  re- 
stricted to  the  original  twelve,  and  their  successors 
were  called  Bishops ;  so  that  the  three  orders  were 
universally  called  Bishops,  Priests,  and  Deacons, 
in  the  next  generation;  and  we  believe  that  this 
form  of  the  Christian  ministry  is  the  only  one  rec- 
ognized by  the  Bible  as  prevailing  through  the  first 
century. 

We  come  now  to  consider  the  Presbyterian  the- 
ory, and  it  is  this.  Most  of  the  eminent  Presby- 
terian scholars  admit  that  from  the  year  150,  Epis- 
copacy prevailed  throughout  the  world,  in  East  and 
West ;'  and  that  no  other  form  of  the  ministry  was 


See  Timlow's  Plain  Footprints. 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  247 

known  until  the  Reformation,  that  is  for  fourteen 
hundred  years.  Their  supposition  is,  that  the 
original  ministry  of  the  Church,  being  presby- 
terian  in  form,  individual  presbyters,  who  pre- 
sided in  presbyterian  assemblies,  gradually  ac- 
quired power  and  authority  over  other  presbyters, 
until  Episcopacy  was  developed:  and  that  this 
change  took  place  between  the  death  of  St.  John  in 
the  year  90,  and  the  year  150.  In  other  words, 
this  radical  revolution  in  the  original  form  of  gov- 
ernment, was  accomplished  in  about  sixty  years. 

If  this  supposition  be  correct,  then  several 
things  necessarily  follow.  First,  that  our  Lord's 
original  institution  was  subverted  and  revolution- 
ized by  His  followers,  almost  immediately  after 
His  departure ;  and  that  such  a  revolutionary  con- 
dition continued  without  interruption  for  fourteen 
hundred  years,  and  existed  everywhere  throughout 
the  Church.  We  ask,  what  was  the  Lord's  will  in 
the  matter?  Had  He  abandoned  His  Mystical 
Body,  or  was  He  powerless  to  prevent  this  complete 
thwarting  of  His  original  purpose?  Then,  sec- 
ondly, it  follows  that  all  the  great  Fathers  of  the 
early  Apostolic  Church  were  prevaricators;  for 
they  testify  to  the  existence  of  episcopal  govern- 
ment from  the  first.  Why  should  men  who  gave 
their  lives  for  the  Church,  deliberately  connive  to 
misrepresent  its  history  and  to  pervert  its  true 
nature  ?  Thirdly,  if  such  a  revolution  took  place, 
it  must  have  been  accomplished  in  a  very  short 
time,  without  protest  or  disturbance  of  any  sort 


248  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

or  description;  for  there  is  absolutely  no  record 
of  any  siicli  disturbing  process  in  Church  history. 
Suppose  that  some  modern  Presbyterian  minister 
should  begin  to  claim  superior  authority  over  his 
fellow  ministers,  and  so  to  start  a  movement  for 
the  establishment  of  Episcopacy,  in  the  Presby- 
terian Church.  Could  he  do  it  without  protest? 
Would  not  the  attempt  stir  up  a  tremendous  pro- 
test, and  opposition  ?  The  whole  Presbyterian 
Church  would  be  shaken  from  end  to  end,  and 
would  go  to  pieces  under  the  strain,  if  the  move- 
ment were  strong  enough  to  hold  out. 

Yet  we  are  asked  to  believe,  that  just  this  thing 
occurred  in  the  early  Church  within  a  few  years, 
and  that  no  serious  protest  was  offered,  no  opposi- 
tion was  made.  No  record  of  the  change  can  be 
found,  and  men  everywhere  wrote  and  spoke  in 
absolute  ignorance  of  any  such  occurrence. 

Then,  fourthly,  we  are  asked  to  believe  that  at 
the  Reformation,  the  original  and  primitive  pres- 
byterian  government  was  re-discovered  and  re- 
established by  an  ex-monk  and  a  French  layman, 
although  the  immediate  result  of  this  restoration 
was  the  division  of  Protestant  Christianity  into  a 
multiplicity  of  sects  which  acknowledged  the  au- 
thority of  no  one  ministry  of  any  sort  or  descrip- 
tion; and  which  cannot  even  agree  as  to  what 
makes  a  man  a  minister  of  Christ.  The  assump- 
tion that  the  original  structure  of  the  Church. was 
presbyterian,  is  beset  with  altogether  too  many  his- 
toric  difficulties   to   make   it   even   credible   to   a 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  249 

Churchman.  The  ordaining  function  has  always 
from  the  first  been  the  office  of  the  highest  or  Apos- 
tolic order,  exactly  as  it  appears  to  be  in  the  New 
Testament.  Moreover,  it  must  be  carefully  noted 
that  the  Reformers  did  not  start  out  in  the  first 
place  by  announcing  that  the  Presbyterian  system 
was  the  only  true  one.  They  endeavored  to  per- 
petuate Episcopacy,  and  acknowledged  that  their 
system  was  defective  without  it ;  and  so  when  they 
found  that  they  could  not  get  episcopal  orders,  they 
became  Presbjd;erians  from  necessity,  and  not  from 
choice.  The  Presbyterian  theory  was  historically 
an  after-thought,  invented  to  fit  the  case  of  sects 
who  could  not  get  Bishops.  Calvin,  Beza,  and 
others,  practically  admitted  the  truth  of  this  when 
they  expressed  themselves  as  desiring  to  retain 
Episcopacy,  as  necessary  to  the  Church. 

Again,  it  must  be  noted  that  the  Methodist 
body  is  really  presbyterian  in  its  ministry,  because 
it  began  at  the  hands  of  a  preshyter,  John  Wesley, 
who  certainly  did  not  possess,  and  could  not  give, 
episcopal  authorit3\ 

In  the  Greneral  Conference  of  1792,  the  follow- 
ing question  and  answer  were  inserted  in  the  Dis- 
cipline: "If  by  death,  expulsion,  or  otherwise, 
there  be  no  Bishop  remaining  in  our  Church,  what 
shall  we  do  ?"  Answer :  "The  General  Confer- 
ence shall  elect  a  Bishop,  the  elders  or  any  three 
of  them  that  shall  be  appointed  by  the  General 
Conference  for  the  pui-pose,  shall  ordain  him,  ac- 
cording  to    our   office    of    ordination."      This    is 


250  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

equivalent  to  a  rejection  of  the  historic  doctrine 
of  Episcopacy  as  being  a  self-perpetuating  order, 
superior  to  Elders  or  Presbyters.  Methodist  his- 
torians assert  that  "Presbyters  and  Bishops  were 
of  the  same  order;  and  the  doctrine  of  uninter- 
rupted succession  from  the  AjDostles,  in  a  third 
order,  by  triple  consecration,  as  distinct  from  and 
superior  to  Presbyters,  has  been  discarded  by  many 
of  the  most  eminent  ecclesiastical  writers  as  resting 
upon  no  solid  foundation,  not  being  susceptible  of 
proof  from  any  authentic  source."  '  So  our  asser- 
tion is  proved;  namely,  that  so  far  as  historic  or- 
ders go,  the  Methodist  Church  is  Presbyterian  in 
form,  and  not  Episcopal,  according  to  the  original 
and  universal  meaning  of  the  word  Episcopal. 

Wesley's  own  position  seems  to  have  been  in 
accordance  with  this.  In  England  he  recognized 
that  the  Bishops  hy  the  law  of  the  land  had  the  sole 
right  to  ordain.  But  for  the  needs  of  America  he 
held  that  as  a  Presbyter  he  had  Scriptural  author- 
ity to  ordain  as  much  as  any  Bishop.  He  preferred 
the  title  Superintendent  when  he  commissioned 
Dr.  Thomas  Coke,  but  he  meant  by  this  title  the 
same  as  Bishop.  Coke's  doubt  as  to  his  position  is 
shown  by  his  negotiations  with  both  Bishop  White 
and  Bishop  Seabury  as  to  episcopal  ordination  for 
himself  and  others. 

Apart  from  the  question  as  to  the  rightful  min- 
ister of  Ordination,  it  must  be  remembered,  that 


'Hist.  M.  E.  Ch.;  Nathan  Bangs. 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  251 

a  minister  of  the  Church  is,  as  St.  Paul  says,  a 
Steward.  A  Steward  is  a  Trustee,  and  a  Trustee 
is  one  who  is  entrusted  with  the  care  of  property 
which  belongs  to  another.  He  cannot  use  it  for 
himself,  or  give  it  away  as  he  pleases.  He  is  au- 
thorized to  use  the  income  for  the  heirs  of  the 
estate,  and  for  no  others.  If  he  uses  his  authority, 
or  power  of  attorney,  to  alienate  any  part  of  the 
property,  he  is  guilty  of  fraud,  and  forfeits  his 
office.  No  minister  can  act  independently  of  the 
Church  which  gives  him  his  office  and  makes  his 
tenure  of  office  dependent  on  his  loyalty  to  the 
Church. 

If  an  officer  in  a  lodge  of  Free  Masons  were  to 
attempt  to  use  his  authority  to  found  a  Chapter  of 
Odd  Fellows,  his  act  would  be  null  and  void.  So, 
ministerial  authority  can  be  used  to  perpetuate  the 
old  Church,  and  never  to  found  new  ones. 

The  ministry  is  an  integral  part  of  the  great 
organism;  and  cannot  he  separated  from  it,  or  used 
apart  from  its  original  intention,  any  more  than  a 
man's  backbone  can  be  extracted,  and  used  for  an- 
other man. 

So  that  if  Wesley  could  ordain,  he  could  only 
act  as  representing  the  Church  to  which  he  be- 
longed, from  which  he  received  his  orders,  and  as 
authorized  by  the  Church,  to  perpetuate  the 
Church.  Did  the  Church  authorize  him  to  ordain 
Coke  ?  Certainly  not.  Has  the  Church  ever  recog- 
nized the  validity  of  Methodist  orders  ?  Most  cer- 
tainly  not.      Then    what   could    Wesley's    action 


252  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

amount  to?  Whatever  authority  Wesley  had,  he 
derived  from  the  Church  of  England,  and  he  held 
it  subject  to  the  laws  of  the  Church  of  England, 
and  could  exercise  it  only  with  the  Church's  con- 
sent. The  Church  never  gave  Wesley  authority  to 
ordain  anybody,  to  any  office,  of  any  sort  or  de- 
scription. 

What  has  just  been  said  is  sufficient  answer  to 
all  those  sects  that  claim  to  be  able  to  trace  a  pres- 
byterian  succession  in  their  ministry,  or  an  epis- 
copal succession,  like  the  Reformed  Episcopalians. 
Supposing  they  could  do  this,  it  would  be  of  no 
use  to  them,  as  long  as  such  succession  was  used 
to  perpetuate  a  new  sect,  separate  from  the  Church, 
the  very  existence  of  which  Scripture  forbids  as 
sinful. 

Moreover,  Protestant  denominations  which 
claim  some  sort  of  presbyterian  succession,  refute 
the  significance  of  their  own  claims  by  admitting 
the  validity  of  the  ministry  of  those  sects  which 
make  no  such  claim,  and  whose  ministers  are 
merely  appointed  by  the  Congregation. 

This  is  the  place  to  meet  a  very  common  objec- 
tion to  the  Church's  teaching  about  the  ministry, 
its  nature  and  authority.  The  objection  opposes 
what  it  calls  "Sacerdotalism."  The  thing  objected 
to,  seems  to  be  the  principle  that  one  man  shall 
have  any  authority  over  another  in  religious 
things,  or  that  one  man's  salvation  should  depend 
in  any  way  on  another  man,  or  on  the  reception  of 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  253 

sacraments  which  he  administers ;  or  that  any  man 
should  "come  in  between  the  soul  and  Christ." 

The  best  answer  is  to  call  attention  to  the  fact 
that  God  constantly  deals  with  men  through  other 
men,  and  that  we  are  dependent  on  special  orders 
or  classes  of  men,  for  certain  gifts  of  God,  whether 
we  like  it  or  not.  For  example,  there  is  a  min- 
istry of  medicine,  and  a  ministry  of  law.  It  is 
commonly  said  that  that  man  who  is  his  own  doc- 
tor, or  his  ovm  lawyer,  is  a  fool.  Interdependence 
is  the  law  of  life,  in  every  department  of  it ;  and 
the  question  is  simply  one  of  fact.  For  if  Christ 
has  sent  men  to  minister  in  His  Name  in  religious 
things,  then,  as  He  says,  to  desj)ise  them,  is  to 
despise  Him. 

If  the  idea  of  a  ministerial  priesthood  be  ob- 
jected to,  as  bringing  an  order  of  men  in  between 
the  soul  and  Christ,  it  must  be  remembered  that 
every  name  used  in  the  Bible  to  describe  the  Chris- 
tian ministry,  implies  mediate  agency  of  some  sort. 
For  example,  all  sects  call  their  ministers  "pas- 
tors." But  a  pastor  is  a  "shepherd" ;  and  a  shep- 
herd is  one  whom  the  owner  of  the  flock  has  set  be- 
tween himself  and  his  sheep.  An  "ambassador"  is 
one  through  whom  a  King  treats  with  other  nations. 
He  is  a  "go-between."  A  "steward"  is  one  who  is 
authorized  to  administer  the  estate  of  another.  An 
"apostle"  or  a  "prophet"  is  one  who  is  sent  by  some 
one  to  represent  him,  to  somebody  else:  and  yet 
this  fact  of  mediate  agency  does  not  in  the  slightest 
degree  detract  from  our  Lord's  unique  prerogative 


254  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

of  being  Himself  the  only  true  Shepherd,  King, 
Steward,  Apostle,  Priest,  and  Prophet.  Why 
should  it  be  said  to  interfere  with  the  soul's  direct 
communion  with  Christ,  through  faith  and  love 
and  prayer,  to  recognize  the  fact  that  in  certain 
respects,  the  Lord  can  and  does  minister  to  us 
through  other  men  ? 

When  our  Lord  fed  the  five  thousand.  He  alone 
multiplied  the  loaves  and  fishes,  but  they  were  dis- 
tributed to  the  hungiy  men  through  the  hands  of 
the  Apostles.  Was  the  food  any  the  less  satisfac- 
tory, or  their  gratitude  to  the  Lord  any  the  less  sin- 
cere, personal,  and  direct,  on  this  account? 

Doubtless  it  requires  humility  to  submit  to  au- 
thority of  any  kind,  or  to  acknowledge  any  kind 
of  dependence ;  but  the  initial  difficulty  is  not  with 
the  idea  of  a  commissioned  priesthood;  it  goes 
farther  back ;  and  starts  with  the  question  of  sub- 
mission to  the  authority  of  Christ.  A  man  must 
become  as  a  little  child,  in  order  to  take  this  first 
step  ;  and  once  having  accepted  the  authority  of  the 
Lord  Christ,  the  question  as  to  how  that  authority 
is  exercised  is  merely  one  of  fact  or  detail.  If  the 
Lord  chooses  to  use  an  order  of  men  to  minister  to 
us  in  religious  matters,  if  He  commissions  and 
sends  such  an  order,  then  it  is  the  part  of  Christian 
Faith  to  admit  the  fact,  and  to  be  on  our  guard, 
lest  opposition  to  what  we  call  "sacerdotalism"  is, 
after  all,  a  spirit  of  rebellion  against  the  Lord 
Himself. 


CHAPTER  XVII 

THE  APOSTOLIC  SUCCESSION  IN  THE  ANGLICAN 

CHUKCH 

CO  most  Protestants,  the  doctrine  and  fact  of 
the  Apostolic  Succession  seems  to  be  incred- 
ible, simply  because  they  fail  to  understand  how 
the  succession  itself  was  maintained,  and  what 
were  the  laws  and  safeguards  which  insured  its 
continuity.  It  is  therefore  necessary  at  this  point 
to  ask,  granting  that  our  Lord  gave  a  commission  to 
His  Apostles,  how  do  we  know  that  this  commission 
has  been  transmitted,  by  an  unbroken  succession, 
through  all  the  ages,  from  the  first  century  to  the 
present  time  ?  How  do  we  know  that  the  chain  of 
ordinations  has  been  continued,  without  break  or 
interruption,  and  so  has  secured  to  Anglican  Cath- 
olics, valid  orders  and  authority  to  teach  in  the 
Name  of  the  Lord  ? 

We  reply,  that  by  the  universal  testimony  of 
history,  as  soon  as  evidence  is  available.  Bishops 
were  always  made  in  just  one  way,  and  no  other: 


256  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

that  is,  by  consecration  at  the  hands  of  lawful 
Bishops.  As  time  went  on,  such  consecration  had 
to  be  duly  licensed,  performed,  and  recorded,  with 
the  utmost  care  and  formality,  before  any  man 
could  possibly  be  recognized  as  a  Bishop  anywhere 
in  the  Church,  and  before  he  could  claim  any  of  the 
rights  and  privileges  of  his  office,  perform  his  epis- 
copal functions,  or  become  entitled  to  the  support 
of  the  Church. 

Consecrations  were  always  public  and  memor- 
able ceremonies,  and  were  attested  by  a  long  series 
of  official  documents.  To  assert  that  a  man  was  a 
Bishop,  exercising  his  functions  with  unchallenged 
authority,  was  necessarily  to  assume  that  the  old 
law  of  the  Church  had  been  complied  with  in  his 
case;  just  as  the  existence  of  a  human  being,  pre- 
supposes the  fact  of  human  parentage.  The  laws 
of  nature,  insuring  the  perpetuity  of  the  human 
race,  being  fixed  and  universal,  we  assume  the  fact 
of  lineal  physical  descent,  because  anything  else  is 
impossible. 

So  in  the  Church,  we  may  say  that  the  lineal 
descent  of  Holy  Orders  is  the  sine  qua  non  of  the 
existence  of  a  Bishop.  Of  course  it  will  be  said 
that  the  actual  records  of  most  of  the  early  con- 
secrations have  been  lost  or  destroyed  altogether; 
and  so  we  are  left  in  uncertainty  concerning  the 
succession.  But  we  reply,  by  asking  a  question: 
If  all  the  records  of  the  elections  and  inaugiira- 
tions  of  the  Presidents  of  the  United  States  for  the 
last  fifty  years,  were  to  be  burned  up,  would  we 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  257 

be  any  the  less  certain  that  those  Presidents  had 
been  properly  elected  ?  Certainly  not ;  because  we 
know  that  during  that  time,  the  same  laws  govern- 
ing elections  have  been  in  force,  and  that  all  elec- 
tions were  carefully  watched,  and  their  results  pro- 
perly verified,  at  the  time  they  took  place ;  so  a 
man  could  become  President  of  the  United  States 
in  one  way,  and  only  one;  and  so  the  mere  fact 
that  he  held  office  during  his  term,  with  unchal- 
lenged authority,  is  prima  facie  evidence  that  his 
election  was  orderly  and  valid. . 

Moreover,  we  have  to-day  not  one  single  one  of 
the  original  manuscripts  of  the  Holy  Scriptures; 
and  yet  no  Christian  seriously  questions  the  fact 
that  these  manuscripts  were  properly  transcribed 
for  the  most  part ;  and  that  the  Bible  we  have,  is 
the  Bible  the  Apostles  wrote ;  that  it  has  come  down 
to  us  by  an  unbroken  succession  of  transcriptions 
— an  Apostolic  succession  of  transcriptions ;  if  we 
may  use  such  an  expression. 

The  Church  is  the  living  witness  which  testi- 
fies to  this  fact  all  along  the  line ;  and  in  precisely 
the  same  way,  the  ministerial  siiccession  comes 
down  to  us  and  is  certified  by  exactly  the  same  wit- 
ness, even  though  the  records  of  the  early  consecra- 
tions have  all  been  lost.  We  are  as  morally  certain 
that  we  have  the  orders  the  Apostles  conferred,  as 
that  we  have  the  Bible  the  Apostles  wrote :  and  in 
this,  as  in  a  multitude  of  other  ways,  the  Bible  and 
the  ministry  are  bound  up  with  the  Living  Church. 


258  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

The  consecration  of  a  Bishop  in  England  was 
always  safe-guarded  with  the  utmost  care.  It  was 
preceded  by  a  nomination,  or  license  from  the 
crown  to  elect,  it  was  conducted  with  much  pub- 
licity, and  every  stage  of  the  proceeding  had  to  be 
verified  and  recorded,  time  and  again,  in  official 
records,  both  of  Church  and  State;  and  if  in  any 
given  case  any  of  these  requirements  had  been 
omitted,  the  Bishop's  authority  was  sure  to  be 
challenged.  The  very  fact  that  in  several  notori- 
ous cases  the  validity  of  a  consecration  has  been 
challenged,  and  finally  and  completely  vindicated 
by  historic  proof,  is  in  itself  re-assuring  as  to  the 
historic  validity  of  Anglican  Orders  in  general. 

Having  now  seen  how  Holy  Orders  have  been 
transmitted  from  one  generation  of  Bishops  to  an- 
other, we  must  note  from  whence  the  Anglican 
Church  received  these  Orders,  originally.  In 
studying  the  history  of  the  Church,  we  found  that 
the  Church  of  England  as  a  corporate  organization 
was  originally  formed  by  the  union  of  two  Cath- 
olic Missions:  the  Celtic,  founded  by  Aidan, 
Bishop  of  Lindisfarne  (Durham),  and  the  Latin 
Mission,  founded  by  Augustine,  the  first  Arch- 
bishop of  Canterbury.  Aidan  introduced  the  Celtic 
line  of  Orders,  and  Augustine,  ordained  by  Virgi- 
lius.  Bishop  of  Aries  in  France,  introduced  the" 
Galilean  succession. 

Theodore,  the  seventh  Archbishop  of  Canter- 
bury, under  whom  was  brought  about  the  union  of 
the  Celtic  and  Latin  Missions,  was  consecrated  by 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  259 

Vitalian,  Bishop  of  Rome;  and  so  he  introduced 
the  Latin  succession. 

John  Moore,  the  eighty-sixth  Archbishop  of 
Canterbury,  with  other  Bishops,  consecrated  the 
first  American  Bishops,  to  receive  orders  from 
the  English  Church,  William  White,  Samuel 
Provoost,  and  James  Madison;  and  so  every 
Bishop  in  the  American  Church  inherits  from 
them,  and,  through  them,  from  the  Archbishops  of 
Canterbury,  and  through  them,  from  the  great 
Apostolic  Sees,  authority  to  minister  in  the  Name 
of  the  Lord,  and  the  grace  of  Holy  Orders. 

So  if  any  Protestant  asks  a  priest  of  the  Amer- 
ican Catholic  Church  for  the  credentials  of  his 
authority  to  teach  in  the  l»[ame  of  Christ,  the  re- 
ply is  a  very  simple  one.  He  says,  the  fact  that 
I  am  recognized  by  the  Bishop  of  my  Diocese,  and 
allowed  to  officiate  by  him,  is  prima  facie  evidence 
that  my  orders  are  valid;  because  my  Bishop  rep- 
resents the  Church;  and  the  law  of  the  Church 
has  always  been  that  no  man  could  officiate  as  a 
priest  at  its  altars,  unless  he  had  been  properly 
ordained  by  a  Bishop,  who  himself  had  received 
his  commission  to  ordain  from  other  Bishops,  in 
regular  and  unbroken  succession  from  Christ 
Himself. 

You  can  trace  back  the  records  of  consecra- 
tions if  you  like ;  and  you  can  see  how  rigidly  the 
law  was  executed,  in  every  age;  you  can  follow 
the  various  lines  of  succession  from  different  coun- 
tries as  they  converge  in  the  Anglican  line ;  you 


260  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

can  study  the  Ordinal;  but  after  all,  this  is  un- 
necessary, for  the  Church  is  in  possession  of  all 
the  facts  of  the  case,  and  she  stakes  her  very  exist- 
ence on  the  truth  of  her  pronouncement ;  and  so 
her  recognition  of  any  man  as  a  priest  of  the 
Church  is,  as  we  said,  sufficiently  satisfactory  evi- 
dence of  the  validity  of  his  orders.  The  average 
layman  is  incompetent  to  investigate  or  weigh  the 
evidence  in  the  matter,  and  he  must  rely  on  the 
Church  in  this,  as  in  most  other  matters,  for  his 
assurance;  and  the  Church  is  the  only  authority 
competent  to  pronounce  upon  the  question. 

Now  it  must  constantly  be  borne  in  mind,  that 
the  Apostolic  succession  of  Bishops  in  the  Cath- 
olic Church  is  not  a  theory,  or  a  plausible  supposi- 
tion. It  is  first  of  all,  a  historic  fact,  which  must 
be  encountered  and  recognized  by  anyone  who  at- 
tempts to  study  the  history  of  the  Church,  any- 
where in  the  world,  from  the  earliest  days.  For 
as  you  trace  the  extension  of  the  Church  through- 
out the  world,  you  find  Churchmen  everywhere  as 
careful  to  transfer  Holy  Orders,  through  valid 
episcopal  consecrations,  as  they  were  to  hand 
down  the  text  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  unimpaired ; 
or  to  preach  the  Faith,  exactly  as  they  had  received 
it,  from  the  original  Revelation  of  our  Lord.  The 
shorter  (authentic)  Ignatian  Epistles,  prove  to  a 
demonstration  that  Churchmen  believed  from  the 
first,  that  the  preservation  of  the  episcopal  succes- 
sion was  vital  to  the  very  existence  of  the  Church; 
and  if  this  be  true,  certainly  they  would  take  every 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  261 

possible  precaution  to  preserve  the  valid  succession 
intact. 

Ignatius,  the  disciple  of  St.  John,  writes: 
"Let  all  men  respect  the  deacons  as  Jesus 
Christ,  even  as  they  should  respect  the  Bishop  as 
being  a  type  of  the  Father,  and  the  presbyters  as 
the  council  of  God  and  as  the  college  of  Apostles. 
Apart  from  these  there  is  not  even  the  Name 
OF  A  Church"  (Trallians  iii). 

Moreover,  the  importance  of  preserving  and 
transmitting  the  episcopal  office  intact,  will  be 
seen  from  the  fact  that  Churchmen  believed  that 
the  Episcopate  was  the  source  of  Holy  Orders. 
Each  Bishop  was  in  himself  Bishop,  Priest,  and 
Deacon;  and  a  Bishoj)  alone  could  confer  any  one 
of  the  three  orders.  Moreover,  the  Episcopate 
was  always  regarded  as  the  bond  of  unity  of  the 
Church,  as  Ignatius  wrote,  "Where  the  Bishop  ap- 
pears, there  let  the  people  be:  as  where  is  Jesus 
Christ,  there  is  the  Catholic  Church.  The  Bishop 
is  the  centre  of  each  individual  Church,  as  Jesus 
Christ  is  the  centre  of  the  universal  Church." 
The  Episcopate  was  to  the  Church  very  much  what 
the  backbone  is  to  the  body  in  any  vertebrate  sys- 
tem. Again,  the  Episcopate  was  regarded  as  the 
custodian  of  the  Faith,  and  the  channel  of  sacra- 
mental grace ;  for  to  the  Apostolic  order  was  prom- 
ised the  guidance  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  to  them 
was  given  authority  to  baptize,  remit  sin,  celebrate 
the  Holy  Eucharist,  and  to  administer  all  sacra- 
mental means  of  grace. 


262  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

Thus  it  will  be  seen,  that  the  orderly  preserva- 
tion and  transmission  of  the  Episcopate  was  re- 
garded of  the  highest  possible  importance.  This 
fact  will  appear  when  we  turn  to  the  early  writ- 
ers, like  Irenseus  and  Tertullian.  Irenaens,  who 
had  been  taught  by  the  disciples  of  St.  John, 
writes  180-185 :  "We  can  enumerate  those  who 
were  appointed  by  the  Apostles  Bishops  in  the 
Churches,  and  their  successors,  even  unto  us. 
The  Apostles  wished  those  to  be  very  perfect  and 
iiTeprehensible  in  all  things,  whom  they  left  their 
successors,  delivering  to  them  their  own  place  of 
government.  By  this  ordination  and  succession, 
the  tradition  which  is  from  the  Apostles  and  the 
doctrine  of  the  truth  hath  come  even  to  us."  * 

Again  Tertullian,  who  wrote  in  the  year  199, 
says:  "If  any  dare  to  mingle  themselves  with  the 
Apostolic  age,  so  that  they  may  appear  to  be 
handed  down  from  the  Apostles,  we  are  able  to  say, 
let  them  produce  the  origin  of  their  churches;  let 
them  set  forth  the  series  of  their  Bishops,  so  run- 
ning down  from  the  beginning  by  successions,  that 
the  first  Bishop  may  have  some  of  the  Apos- 
tles, or  Apostolic  men  who  continued  with  the 
Apostles  for  their  author  or  predecessor.  For  in 
this  manner,  the  Apostolic  Churches  trace  their 
origin ;  as  the  Church  of  Smyrna,  having  Polycarp, 
relates  that  he  was  placed  there  by  St.  John;  as 
that  of  Rome  doth,  that  Clement  was  in  like  man- 


^  Adv.  Haeres,  iii.  ch.  3d. 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  263 

ner  ordained  by  Peter.  In  like  manner  also,  the 
rest  of  them  show  that  they  have  grafts  of  the 
Apostolic  seed,  who  were  appointed  to  the  Episco- 
pate by  the  Apostles."  ^  The  testimony  of  these 
two  men  covers  the  period  from  150  to  200.  Euse- 
bius,  who  was  Bishop  of  Csesarea,  and  a  great 
Church  historian,  gives  the  succession  of  the  Bish- 
ops in  four  gi'eat  Patriarchal  sees  from  the  Apos- 
tles, namely,  in  the  Patriarchates  of  Pome,  Alex- 
andria, Jerusalem,  and  Antioch,  down  to  his  own 
time ;  that  is,  to  within  twenty  years  of  the  Council 
of  Nicea;  and  he  had  access  to  libraries  and  ar- 
chives of  both  State  and  Church. 


De  Praescript.  Haeret.,  ch.  32. 


CHAPTER  XVIII 

THE   SACRAMENTAL   SYSTEM 

TN  THE  last  two  chapters,  we  considered  the 
ministry  of  the  Church,  chiefly  as  that  order 
of  men  which  our  Lord  commissioned  to  teach  the 
Catholic  Faith  of  the  Church  in  His  Kame,  and 
to  bring  it  to  bear  on  the  hearts  and  lives  of  indi- 
vidual men.  But  certainly  our  Lord  did  far  more 
than  reveal  truth;  and  so  His  ministry,  which 
He  sends  to  represent  Him,  must  do  far  more  than 
teach.  Our  Lord  does  not  save  men  by  giving 
them  a  new  philosophy  of  life,  or  even  a  new  and 
correct  system  of  theology.  But  He  saves  them 
from  the  power  and  penalty  of  sin,  through  His 
Adorable  Sacrifice  of  Himself  upon  the  cross ;  and 
it  is  the  chief  part  of  His  mediatorial  work  now, 
to  apply  the  benefits,  won  by  the  shedding  of  His 
precious  Blood,  to  individual  men,  in  every  age, 
and  every  place.  Does  our  Lord  do  this  directly, 
with  each  man  alone  by  himself,  or  does  He  do  it 
mediately  through  His  ministry,  in  the  Church? 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  265 

The  Church,  and  as  we  think,  the  Bible,  teaches 
that  "the  principle  of  the  ministry  of  reconcilia- 
tion is  this :  that  God  is  pleased  to  convey  the  bene- 
fits of  His  redemption  from  sin,  not  only  directly 
from  Himself,  but  mediately,  or  more  indirectly, 
but  none  the  less  certainly,  through  the  action  of 
others" ;  those  He  sends  to  represent  Him. 
Everyone  admits  that  He  uses  the  preaching  of 
men  as  a  means  through  which  He  gives  men 
truth,  and  stirs  faith  and  repentance  in  their 
hearts ;  so  that  one  man  may  thus  be  instrumental 
in  the  salvation  of  other  men,  may  thus  bring  them 
to  receive  our  Lord's  pardon. 

But  did  our  Lord  commission  His  ministry 
as  priests,  as  well  as  teachers  f  He  Himself  was 
certainly  "a  Priest  forever"  (Heb.  vii.  17). 
God  sent  Him  as  a  Priest;  and  He  said  to  His 
Apostles,  "As  My  Father  hath  sent  Me,  even  so 
send  I  you"  (John  xx.  21).  Certainly  His  min- 
isters could  not  make  any  new  atonement  for  sin, 
nor  could  they  offer  any  new  sacrifice.  They  could 
not  repeat,  or  in  any  way  add  to,  the  merits  of  our 
Lord's  oblation  of  Himself.  "But  if  the  essence 
of  all  Christian  Priesthood  is  the  application  to  in- 
dividuals of  the  one  all  sufficient  Sacrifice,  then 
He  sent  them  to  be  priests ;  to  apply  and  to  plead 
the  same  sacrifice,  which  He  offered  on  the  cross." 

How  does  the  Christian  priesthood  serve  its 
priestly  function  ?  How  is  its  work  related  to 
the  great  Sacrifice  ?  We  answer  that  it  is  through 
what  we  may  call  the  Sacramental  System  of  the 


266  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

Chiircli.  In  other  words,  the  benefits  of  our 
Lord's  sacrificial  offering,  the  gifts  of  pardon  and 
grace,  are  ordinarily  conveyed  to  men  through  the 
reception  of  sacraments,  which  our  Lord  Himself 
ordains,  and  which  His  priests  administer  in  His 
!Name. 

This  brings  us  at  once  to  the  question.  Do  Sac- 
raments convey  pardon  and  gTace  ? 

The  popular  definition  of  a  sacrament  is,  that 
it  is  a  symbolic  ceremony  instituted  by  the  Lord 
Christ  as  a  figure  of  spiritual  truth,  to  appeal  to 
the  imagination,  and  so  to  stimulate  faith.  It  is 
a  symbol  of  grace,  but  not  the  means  by  which 
the  grace  is  actually  given.  A  child  is  baptized, 
it  is  said,  in  the  hope  that  some  day  in  the  future 
it  will  be  regenerate ;  and  a  man  is  baptized  in  the 
belief  that  he  has  sometime  in  the  past  already 
become  regenerate;  but  neither  child  nor  man  is 
baptized  that  the  baptism  may  convey  regenerating 
grace  when  the  sacrament  is  administered. 

Now  there  is,  to  begin  with,  a  very  radical  ob- 
jection to  this  view  that  sacraments  are  merely 
figures  or  symbols,  because,  if  they  are,  then  they 
are  contrary  to  the  whole  essence  and  nature  of  the 
Christian  dispensation,  which  is  one  of  realities, 
not  types  or  symbols.  The  Jewish  system  was  one 
of  types,  and  the  characteristic  difference  between 
it  and  the  Christian  Church  is,  that  types  were 
done  away,  and  realities  took  their  place,  when  the 
Lord  came  to  establish  His  Kingdom  among  men. 
The  Protestant  idea  of  maintaining  a  system  of 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  267 

symbolic  rites  in  the  Christian  Church,  which  are 
merely  symbols,  is  purely  Jewish  in  its  origin  and 
nature.  But  if  the  Christian  Church  is  Christ's 
Body,  endowed  with  His  life,  it  must  have  organs 
through  which  that  life  operates,  nourishes,  sus- 
tains, and  perpetuates  itself.  The  only  way  we 
can  know  any  kind  of  life  is  through  some  sort  of 
organs  through  which  it  acts.  The  strong  pre- 
sumption is,  that  grace  in  the  Christian  Church 
will  be  sacramental  grace,  that  is,  that  it  will  be 
conveyed  under  some  sort  of  a  visible  form,  simply 
because,  as  we  have  proved,  the  Church  itself  is 
an  organism,  and  represents  the  Incarnation, 
which  is  an  organic  fact.  When  our  Lord  was 
visibly  present  among  men.  He  frequently  healed 
men  through  media  of  some  sort ;  by  the  touch  of 
His  Hand,  His  Garment,  the  use  of  His  saliva, 
or  common  clay.  The  use  of  any  medium  was 
not  in  the  slightest  degree  necessary  or  significant, 
unless  it  was  meant  to  enforce  the  truth  that  all 
grace  comes  from  His  Person,  and  that  He  is  to 
work  through  media  in  the  future,  Avhen  He  should 
be  mystically  present  in  His  Church;  should  heal 
spiritual  diseases  through  the  use  of  sacraments, 
which  had  outward  signs,  and  which  men  could  see 
and  touch. 

Men  often  ask,  "How  can  God  give  spiritual 
grace  through  outward  forms  ?"  We  reply,  that 
it  is  rather  dangerous  business  to  attempt  to  say 
what  God  will  do  or  will  not  do,  or  to  ask  how 
He  does  what  He  does.     The  only  question  within 


268  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

the  scope  of  our  intelligence  is,  What  has  God 
actually  done  ?  And  then  we  must  accept  the  fact 
of  His  doing,  just  as  He  states  it.  To  assume 
that  Christ  now,  as  Man,  is  so  shut  up  and  hemmed 
in  by  the  conditions  which  He  creates,  that  in  His 
Church  He  cannot,  or  will  not,  give  men  pardon 
and  gTace  through  sacraments,  is  sheer  presump- 
tion. To  assume  that  the  sacramental  forms  are 
inconsistent  with  a  high  spiritual  ideal  of  religion, 
may  prove,  after  all,  but  the  assumption  to  be 
more  spiritual  than  the  Lord  Himself,  if  He  pro- 
vides such  forms.  He  only  knows  what  is  best 
for  men;  and  to  set  aside  mysterious  statements 
of  His,  as  being  only  figurative,  merely  because 
they  are  mysterious,  is  simply  to  impeach  His 
wisdom. 

No  doubt  Christ  did  teach  by  the  use  of  fig- 
ures and  metaphors,  at  times  when  the  figurative 
character  of  what  He  said,  would  be  perfectly 
obvious  and  beyond  question,  to  those  who  listened 
to  Him;  as  for  example,  when  He  said,  "I  am 
the  door,"  "I  am  the  true  vine."  No  one  with 
any  degree  of  intelligence  could  possibly  take  Him 
literally  when  He  thus  spoke.  But  this  attempt  to 
explain  the  Lord's  words  figuratively,  in  any  case 
where  they  are  not  obviously  figurative,  is  very 
dangerous,  for  this  reason:  If  you  are  at  liberty 
to  explain  what  He  said  about  the  sacraments 
figuratively,  why  not  explain  what  He  said  about 
His  sacrificial  death,  and  His  claims  as  the  Son 
of  God   figuratively  ?      In   short,   where   are  you 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  269 

going  to  stop,  until  you  explain  away  the  supernat- 
ural element  of  Revelation  altogether.  The  whole 
genius  of  rationalism  is  involved  in  the  liberty  to 
explain  away  that  which  savors  of  the  superna- 
tural. We  are  playing  with  a  dangerous  tool,  when 
we  attempt  to  turn  mysteries  into  metaphors,  and 
so  get  rid  of  them. 

When  we  come  to  consider  our  Lord*s  sacra- 
mental teaching,  we  must  constantly  remember 
ivlio  it  is  that  speaks.  We  must  recall  the  fact  that 
in  His  own  Divine  Person,  He  is  infinitely  mys- 
terious. If  an  ordinary  man  had  evolved  a  new 
religion,  and  had  instituted  a  series  of  memorial 
observances  as  the  founder  of  a  new  religion,  they 
could  not  have  involved  any  mystery.  But  when 
the  Son  of  God,  the  Word  made  Flesh,  institutes 
a  sacrament,  or  a  series  of  sacraments,  and  uses 
expressions  concerning  them  which  associate  them 
as  closely  as  language  can  with  His  o^vn  media- 
torial work  of  saving  and  cleansing  men,  then  cer- 
tainly, those  sacraments  must  have  some  Yerj  won- 
derful connection  with  His  Divine  Person,  and 
with  the  application  of  His  Precious  Blood,  by 
which  men  are  saved.  He  could  not  use  words  that 
would  needlessly  mislead  anyone;  and  again  we 
repeat,  that  to  accept  the  wonderful  mystery  of  the 
Incarnation  as  a  fact,  as  the  greatest  of  all  conceiv- 
able mysteries,  and  yet  to  halt  and  stumble  at  sac- 
ramental mysteries,  is  certainly  a  very  illogical  pro- 
ceeding. 

If  we  can  disabuse  our  minds  of  all  precon- 


270  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  . 

ceived  theories,  and  take  the  words  of  our  Lord 
and  His  Apostles  about  the  sacraments  just  as  they 
stand,  in  their  ordinary  grammatical  sense,  one 
thing  is  very  certain;  namely,  that  they  do  imply 
that  the  sacraments  are  means  by  which  the  par- 
don and  grace  of  God  are  given  to  men.  Such  an 
inference  cannot  be  gotten  rid  of,  except  in  one 
way ;  that  is,  by  assuming  that  neither  Christ  nor 
His  Apostles  meant  what  they  said,  but  that  they 
spoke  figuratively,  obscurely,  and  through  a  round- 
about and  very  perplexing  metaphor,  when  they 
wanted  to  convey  simple  truths  to  simple  men,  who 
would  be  most  apt  to  take  them  literally. 

Now  for  the  proof  of  this  statement. 

Take  first  the  sacrament  of  Baptism.  Our 
Lord  said,  "He  that  believeth  and  is  baptized,  shall 
be  saved"  (Mark  xvi.  16).  Notice,  He  here  puts 
Baptism  on  the  same  level  with,  and  as  being  of  the 
same  importance  as,  faith.  But  surely.  He  could 
not  possibly  have  spoken  of  Baptism  in  the  same 
breath  with  such  a  vital  matter  as  faith,  and  made 
them  both  conditions  of  salvation,  if  Baptism  is 
only  a  form.  On  the  contrary,  if  Baptism  conveys 
some  grace  which  is  generally  necessary  to  salva- 
tion, then  our  Lord's  association  of  Baptism  with 
faith,  is  most  reasonable  and  natural. 

Again  our  Lord  says,  "Except  a  man  be  bom 
of  water  and  the  Spirit,  he  cannot  enter  into  the 
Kingdom  of  God"  (John  iii.  5).  Now  if  our  Lord 
meant.  Except  a  man  repent  and  be  converted,  he 
cannot  enter  into  the  Kingdom,  why  did  He  not  say 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  271 

SO  plainly  ?  Elsewhere,  when  He  speaks  of  repent- 
ance and  conversion,  there  is  no  ambiguity  in  His 
language.  Moreover,  what  can  the  material  ele- 
ment of  water  have  to  do  with  repentance  and  con- 
version? And  yet  our  Lord  mentions  both  water 
and  the  Spirit,  as  two  agencies,  separate  and  dis- 
tinct, and  yet  binds  them  both  together.  More- 
.over,  "being  born,"  is  not  a  change  of  heart;  but 
it  is  entering  into  a  new  life,  the  life  of  the  Incar- 
nate Son  of  God ;  and  if  the  word  luater  is  merely 
a  symbol,  and  not  literal  water,  then  it  is  out  of 
place:  because  it  is  totally  inadequate  to  represent 
such  a  thing  as  the  neiu  hirth.  But  if  we  assume 
that  a  man  who  receives  the  gift  of  the  new  Christ- 
life,  receives  it  through  the  Spirit,  and  by  means 
of  water  baptism,  then  our  Lord's  words  become 
plain  and  intelligible. 

In  the  first  sermon  ever  preached,  St.  Peter 
said,  "Repent  and  be  baptized,  every  one  of  you, 
in  the  jSTame  of  Jesus  Christ,  for  the  remission  of 
sins;  and  ye  shall  receive  the  gift  of  the  Holy 
Ghost"  (Acts  ii.  38).  ]S[ow  if  Baptism  is  a  mere 
form,  how  can  it  possibly  be  administered  fok  the 
REMISSION  OF  SINS  ?  But  if,  ou  the  other  hand. 
Baptism  does  convey  some  cleansing  grace,  does  in 
some  way  apply  to  the  baptized  man  the  benefits 
of  Christ's  cleansing  Blood,  then  certainly  men 
would  be  baptized  "for  the  remission  of  sins."  St. 
Paul  was  wonderfully  converted,  and  yet  after 
his  conversion,  he  was  told  to  "rise  and  be  bap- 
tized and  WASH  away  his  sins"  (Acts  xxii.  16). 


272  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

So  that  conversion  does  not  complete  the  spiritual 
cleansing  without  Baptism.  Christ  is  said  to 
"sanctify  and  cleanse  His  Church  with  the  wash- 
ing OF  WATER  BY  THE  WORd"    (Eph.  V.  26).      But 

a  mere  form  or  symbol  cannot  possibly  sanctify  or 
cleanse  anything,  in  a  spiritual  sense.  A  sacra- 
ment surely  can,  if  it  conveys  cleansing  grace. 
Again  we  read,  "that  even  Baptism  doth  now  save 
us"  (I.  Pet.  iii.  21),  together  with  "the  answer  of 
a  good  conscience  towards  God."  Baptism  then  at 
least  must  be  one  of  the  means  by  which  we  are 
brought  into  a  savable  condition.  Again  we  read, 
that  "by  one  Spirit  are  we  all  baptized  into  one 
Body"  (I.  Cor.  xii.  13),  "Christ's  Body  the 
Church,"  and  are  thus  made  so  really  one  with 
Him  that  we  become  "members  of  His  Body" 
(Eph.  V.  30).  Being  "baptized  into  Christ"  is  "to 
put  on  Christ"  (Gal.  iii.  27).  By  Baptism  we  "are 
buried  with  Him,"  and  "rise  with  Him"  (Col.  ii. 
12)  ;  that  is,  the  benefits  of  His  death  are  so  truly 
made  over  to  us  in  Baptism,  that  we  are  said  actu- 
ally to  die  and  rise  with  Him.  Thus  Baptism 
brings  us  into  the  most  intimate  relation  with  His 
Person  and  His  atoning  work;  and  to  assert  that 
any  such  results  could  be  produced  by  the  admin- 
istration of  an  empty  form,  a  mere  symbol,  is  of 
course  preposterous  in  the  extreme.  ^ 

Take  next  Confirmation.  When  St.  Peter  and 
St.  John  confirmed  the  Samaritans,  "they  prayed 
for  them,  that  they  might  receive  the  Holy  Ghost" 
(Acts  viii.  lY).     "Then  laid  they  their  hands  on 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  273 

them,  and  they  received  the  Holy  Ghost."  When 
St.  Paul  confirmed  the  Ephesians,  he  said  unto 
them,  "Have  ye  received  the  Holy  Ghost  since  ye 
believed?"  And  when  they  replied  in  the  nega- 
tive, "Paul  laid  his  hands  upon  them,  the  Holy 
Ghost  came  on  them"  (Acts  xix.  6).  And  so  Con- 
firmation appears  in  Scripture  as  a  sacramental 
means  of  receiving  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  not  as  an 
empty  form,  not  even  primarily  as  an  opportunity 
for  professing  one's  faith  before  men. 

Confirmation  is  called  one  of  "the  principles 
of  the  doctrine  of  Christ"  (Heb.  vi.  1),  and  in  a 
list  of  such  doctrines,  is  ranked  with  faith  and  re- 
pentance. This  could  not  possibly  be  the  case,  if 
Confirmation  were  a  mere  form. 

Take  next  Absolution.  The  commission  to 
remit  and  to  retain  sins,  primarily  in  admitting  to 
and  repelling  from  Baptism,  was  given  by  our  Lord, 
when  He  ordained  His  Apostles,  and  said  to  them, 
"As  My  Father  hath  sent  Me,  even  so  send  I  you. 
Receive  ye  the  Holy  Ghost.  Whosesoever  sins  ye 
forgive,  they  are  forgiven  unto  them ;  and  whoseso- 
ever sins  ye  retain,  they  are  retained"  (John  xx. 
23). 

If  by  these  words,  the  Lord  meant  nothing 
more  than  that  the  Apostles  should  tell  men  that 
if  they  should  repent,  God  would  forgive  them, 
why  did  He  use  such  ambiguous  language,  so  liable 
to  be  misunderstood  ?  He  said,  "Whosesoever  sins 
ye  remit,  they  are  remitted."  He  did  not  say,  Go 
preach  that  God  will  forgive  all  men  who  repent. 


274  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

Moreover,  it  must  be  remembered  that  when  He 
forgave  the  sins  of  the  sick  man,  and  His  hearers 
stumbled  at  His  words.  He  claimed  the  right  to 
forgive  sin,  not  as  the  Son  of  God,  but  as  the  Son 
of  Man.  "That  ye  may  know  that  the  Son  of  Man 
hath  power  on  earth  to  forgive  sin" ;  that  is,  He 
claimed  to  absolve  by  a  delegated  power,  which  He 
in  turn  delegated  to  His  Apostles.  "All  power  is 
given  unto  Me  in  heaven  and  in  earth ;  go  ye  there- 
fore. As  My  Father  hath  sent  Me,  even  so  send 
I  you.  Whosesoever  sins  ye  remit,"  etc.  And  cer- 
tainly it  is  no  harder  to  believe  that  one  whom  the 
Lord  commissions  and  sends  can  remit  sins  by 
word  of  mouth  to  a  repentant  believer,  restoring 
him  to  the  Baptismal  position  he  had  forfeited, 
than  that  he  can  baptize  with  water  ''for  the  remis- 
sion of  sins."  Baptism  and  Absolution  are  alike, 
in  that  they  both  are  means  by  which  the  cleansing 
Blood  of  Christ  is  applied  to  the  individual, 
through  the  ministrations  of  someone  else,  i^ow 
St.  Paul  evidently  believed  that  he  had  power  to 
remit  sin,  when  he  said  to  the  Corinthians,  "If  I 
forgave  anything,  to  whom  I  forgave  it,  for  your 
sakes  forgave  I  it,  in  the  Person  of  Christ"  (II. 
Cor.  ii.  10). 

Take  next  Ordination.  When  our  Lord  or- 
dained His  Apostles  He  said  to  them,  "Receive 
the  Holy  Ghost"  (John  xx.  22),  and  He  '"breathed 
on  them,"  His  breath  being  the  sacramental  symbol 
of  the  gift  of  the  Spirit.  When  St.  Paul  had  or- 
dained Timothy,  he  said  to  him,  "Stir  up  the  gift 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  275 

(of  the  Holy  Spirit)  that  is  in  thee,  through  the 
putting  on  of  my  hands"  (II.  Tim.  i.  6).  And  so 
he  claimed  to  be  able  to  give  such  spiritual  gift,  in 
ordination.' 

Now  lastly,  we  come  to  the  Blessed  Sacrament 
of  the  Holy  Eucharist.  When  our  Lord  said, 
"This  is  My  Body,"  "This  is  My  Blood,"  are  we 
to  take  Him  as  speaking  figuratively,  or  literally  ? 

In  the  sixth  chapter  of  St.  John's  Gospel,  our 
Lord  utters  a  discourse  which  seems  to  be  prepar- 
atory for  the  institution  of  the  Holy  Eucharist, 
which  followed  a  year  later  on  Maundy  Thursday 
night.  He  calls  Himself  "the  Bread  which  came 
down  from  Heaven,"  and  asserts,  that  "the  Bread" 
which  He  "will  give,  is  His  Flesh."  J^owhere  else 
does  He  use  siich  language,  except  in  the  institu- 
tion of  the  Holy  Eucharist,  where  He  says,  "This 
is  My  Body,"  "This  is  My  Blood"  ;  and  the  Church 
has  always  held  that  this  chapter  sets  forth  our 
Lord's  teaching  concerning  the  Eucharist. 

When  our  Lord  thus  taught,  how  was  He  to 
be  understood  ?  First,  He  says,  "I  am  the  Bread 
of  Life,  which  came  down  from  Heaven."  And 
the  Jews  stumble  at  this  statement,  saying,  "Is  not 
this  Jesus,  whose  father  and  mother  we  know?" 
They  stumbled  at  our  Lord's  assertion  that  He 
came  down  from  heaven;  that  is  at  His  Incarna- 
tion.   B\it  our  Lord  proceeds,  "The  Bread  which  I 

'  The  passage  may  refer  to  Confirmation  rather  than  to 
Ordination.  The  sacramental  principle  affirmed  would  be 
the  same  in  either  case. 


276  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

will  give  is  Mj  Flesh" ;  that  is,  He  directs  atten- 
tion away  from  His  whole  personality,  to  one  spe- 
cial part  of  it.  His  Flesh,  which  He  promises  to 
give  them  in  some  way.  Naturally  they  take  Him 
literally,  and  stumble  at  His  words,  saying,  '^How 
can  this  man  give  us  His  flesh  to  eat  ?"  This  mys- 
tery is  harder  to  believe  than  the  other.  Notice 
well  that  those  who  heard  Him,  thought  that  in 
some  way  He  meant  what  He  seemed  to  mean,  that 
He  would  give  them  His  Flesh  to  eat;  and  they 
were  amazed  and  offended,  and  began  to  turn  away 
from  Him.  Remember  that  He  came  to  teach 
these  men,  and  that  He  loved  them,  and  was  in- 
finitely concerned  to  save  them.  What  then  was 
He  morally  bound  to  do  under  the  circumstances, 
when  they  were  wandering  away  from  Him,  slip- 
ping from  His  grasp  ?  Was  He  not  bound  to  ex- 
plain their  mistake,  and  say  to  them  plainly,  if 
such  were  His  meaning:  "There  is  no  reason  why 
you  should  be  offended  at  My  words.  They  con- 
tain no  mystery.  I  do  not  mean  what  I  seem  to 
mean.  I  am  only  speaking  figuratively.  When 
I  say  that  the  Bread  which  I  will  give  is  My  Flesh, 
I  do  not  mean  flesh  at  all.  I  mean  the  bread  that  I 
will  give  is  the  Bible,  or  My  SjDirit,  or  a  sense 
of  pardon,  or  saving  grace,  or  comfort  and  conso- 
lation, or  truth,  with  which  I  will  feed  your  souls. 
There  really  is  no  mystery  in  My  words,  nothing 
whatever  to  perplex  you,  or  to  stumble  at"  ?  If 
our  Lord  had  thus  explained  Himself,  all  difficulty 
would  at  once  have  been  removed;  and  the  Jews 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  277 

would  have  been  satisfied.  But  as  a  matter  of 
fact,  did  He  so  explain  Himself?  Pie  certainly 
did  not.  Why  not  ?  Simply  because  no  such  ex- 
planation could  truthfully  be  given;  for  He  did 
mean  what  He  seemed  to  mean,  that  in  some  way 
He  would  give  them  His  Flesh  to  eat;  and  so  He 
was  obliged  to  let  them  go  away,  just  as  He  did, 
without  retracting  His  words,  or  explaining  them 
figuratively.  On  the  contrary,  He  only  adds  to 
the  difficulty  by  saying,  "Except  ye  eat.  the  Flesh  of 
the  Son  of  Man,  and  drink  His  Blood,  ye  have  no 
life  in  you."  We  read  that  many  even  of  His  dis- 
ciples, when  they  heard  this,  said,  "This  is  a  hard 
saying,  who  can  hear  it  ?" 

Could  any  incident  more  effectually  settle  the 
question  that  in  this  case  our  Lord  meant  what  He 
said  to  be  taken  as  indicating  a  wonderful  mystery 
concerning  the  nature  of  the  Holy  Eucharist  ?  But 
beside  all  this,  we  must  remember  that  our  Lord 
knew  all  things ;  and  He  knew  at  this  very  moment, 
when  these  Jews  took  His  statement  literally,  that 
all  Christians  in  the  Church,  from  one  end  of  the 
world  to  the  other,  for  fifteen  hundred  years,  would 
also  take  His  words  literally,  and  believe  that  in 
the  Blessed  Sacrament,  they  received  the  Lord's 
Body  and  Blood;  and  yet  He  gives  no  warning 
against  this  terrible  mistake,  if  it  be  a  mistake. 
He  says  nothing,  not  one  word,  when  it  would  have 
been  such  a  simple  matter  to  have  said  plainly  that 
the  sacraments  would  be  symbols,  and  nothing 
more ;   and  so  He  would  have  saved  generation 


278  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

after  generation,  from  a  radically  false  belief. 
His  true  meaning  must  have  been  stated  at  least 
once,  so  that  no  man  could  mistake  it.  Our  Lord's 
refusal  to  explain  away  the  mystery  of  His  words, 
when  such  explanation  was  imperative  if  it  could 
be  made,  is  surely  decisive  as  to  His  meaning. 

It  is  sometimes  said  that  our  Lord  did  so  ex- 
plain His  words  when  He  said,  "It  is  the  Spirit 
that  quickeneth.  The  Flesh  profiteth  nothing." 
But  we  ask,  what  living  Christian  wiU  dare  to  say 
that  the  Flesh  of  the  Son  of  God  proficeth  nothing, 
in  the  sense  implied  ? 

The  Church  has  always  held  that  in  the  Holy 
Eucharist,  it  is  the  Holy  Spirit  that  quickeneth. 
His  power  is  invoked  upon  the  elements  of  bread 
and  wine,  that  they  may  become  to  us,  the  Body 
and  Blood  of  Christ.  The  Holy  Spirit  brings 
about  the  sacramental  Presence  of  our  Lord,  as 
He  was  the  means  by  which  the  Word  was  made 
Flesh,  in  the  womb  of  the  Blessed  Virgin.  If  we 
can  think  of  our  Lord's  Flesh  as  existing  apart 
from  the  operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  for  one  sin- 
gle moment,  surely  it  would  profit  nothing;  but 
the  Church  never  has  done  this,  and  cannot  do  it 
without  denying  the  Catholic  Faith.  So  these 
words  cannot  possibly  be  construed  as  if  by  them 
our  Lord  intended  to  retract  all  that  He  had  just 
said,  concerning  the  life-giving  property  of  His 
Flesh. 

Our  Lord's  teaching  in  the  sixth  chapter  of 
St.  John  finds  its  fulfilment  in  the  institution  of 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  279 

the  Holy  Eucharist,  m  which  our  Lord  "in  the 
night  in  which  He  was  betrayed  took  bread;  and 
when  He  had  given  thanks,  He  brake  it,  and  said, 
This  is  My  Body,  which  is  broken  for  you ;  this  do 
in  remembrance  of  Me.  In  like  manner  also  the 
cup,  after  supper,  saying,  This  cup  is  the  ]^ew 
Covenant  in  My  Blood.  This  do,  as  oft  as  ye  drink 
it,  in  remembrance  of  Me.  For  as  often  as  ye  eat 
this  bread,  and  drink  the  cup,  ye  proclaim  the 
Lord's  death  till  He  come"  (I.  Cor.  xi.  23-26). 

This  account  of  the  institution '  of  the  Holy 
Eucharist  was  given  to  St.  Paul  by  special  revela- 
tion from  the  Lord  Himself !  And  St.  Paul  adds, 
"Whosoever  shall  eat  the  bread  or  drink  the 
cup  of  the  Lord  unworthily,  shall  be  guilty  of  the 
Body  and  Blood  of  the  Lord."  Guilty,  not  of 
irreverence  merely,  but  giiilty  of  one  particular 
thing,  namely,  of  sin  against  the  Body  and  Blood 
of  Christ.  Now  how  could  anyone  be  guilty  of 
the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ,  when  he  ate  this 
bread,  and  drank  this  cup  unworthily,  unless  this 
bread,  and  this  cup,  actually  conveyed  the  Body 
and  Blood  of  Christ  ? 

Again  St.  Paul  says,  "He  that  eateth  and 
drinketh,  eateth  and  drinketh  judgment  to  him- 
self, if  he  discern  not  the  Body"  (I.  Cor.  xi.  29). 
That  is,  not  discerning  the  presence  of  the  Lord's 
Body.  Now  surely,  no  man  by  receiving  mere 
symbols,  could  eat  and  drink  judgment  to  himself. 
Such  an  expression  would  be  preposterous.  The 
use  or  misuse  of  any  symbol  could  not  of  itself  in- 


280  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

sure  either  salvation,  or  condemnation,  to  anyone. 
But  if  the  bread  and  wine  actually  conveyed  the 
Body  and  Blood  of  Christ,  then  the  abuse  and  un- 
worthy reception  of  these  things,  must  certainly 
bear  very  closely  on  the  question  of  salvation  or 
condemnation. 

Again,  St.  Paul  says:  "The  cup  of  blessing 
which  we  bless,  is  it  not  a  communion  (or  partici- 
pation) of  the  Blood  of  Christ  ?  The  bread  which 
we  break,  is  it  not  the  communion  (or  participa- 
tion) of  the  Body  of  Christ  ?  Seeing  that  we,  who 
are  many,  are  one  bread,  one  body ;  for  we  all  par- 
take of  the  one  bread"  (I.  Cor.  x.  16).  Here  he 
asserts  that  partaking  of  the  sacramental  bread,  is 
the  source  of  unity.  Eating  common  bread  to- 
gether, might  be  a  symbol  of  unity,  but  it  never 
could  be  the  source  of  unity ;  and  if  participation 
in  the  same  sacrament  made  all  Christians  one 
Body,  then  the  sacrament  must  convey  some  super- 
natural gift,  which  bound  them  all  together. 

In  answer  to  this  line  of  argiiment,  it  is  often 
replied.  The  Lord  said,  "I  am  the  door" ;  "I  am 
the  true  vine" ;  when  everybody  knows  He  spoke 
figuratively ;  and  in  this  figurative  sense  He  said 
of  the  bread,  "This  is  My  Body."  But  notice 
carefully  our  Lord's  words.  He  did  say,  "I  am 
the  true  vine,"  that  is,  the  reality  of  which  the 
ordinary  vine  is  a  type  and  figure.  To  make  His 
sacramental  words  correspond  He  should  have 
said  merely,  I  am  the  true  bread ;  and  we  would 
know  He  was  speaking  figuratively.    But  what  He 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  281 

actually  said  was,  "This  is  My  Body" ;  and  to 
make  this  expression  analogous,  He  should  have 
said,  "This  door  is  Myself";  and  "This  vine  is 
truly  Myself,"  which  He  did  not  say  at  all.  So 
there  is  no  analogy  between  these  two  expressions, 
"This  is  My  Body,"  and  "I  am  the  true  vine." 

When  the  Church  asserts  her  belief  in  the  pres- 
ence of  the  Body  and  Blood  of  the  Lord,  under  the 
forms  of  bread  and  wine,  in  the  Holy  Eucharist, 
and,  refusing  to  rend  His  adorable  Personality,  as- 
serts the  fact  of  His  sacramental  Presence,  we  are 
often  met  with  this  objection :  God  is  everywhere 
present,  and  He  is  no  more  present  in  one  place 
than  in  another.  He  does  not  dwell  in  temples 
made  with  hands,  and  He  can  be  as  truly  wor- 
shipped with  the  thoughts  of  the  heart  anywhere, 
as  in  the  sacrament.  We  cannot  localize  or  limit, 
the  Presence  of  God. 

We  reply,  Certainly  not.  Nevertheless,  the 
fact  of  God's  omnipresence  does  not  in  the  least 
prevent  Him  from  establishing  certain  means  of 
special  access  to  Himself,  certain  points  of  special 
approach  and  contact  with  Him,  in  time  and 
space,  when  He  assures  us  of  such  contact  by 
outward  signs.  The  Lord  was  everywhere  pres- 
ent; and  yet  at  the  sam^  time  He  was  specially 
present  in  the  manger  at  Bethlehem,  and  on  the 
Cross  at  Calvary.  So  with  the  glorified  humanity 
of  our  Lord.  Because  it  is  enthroned  at  the  right 
hand  of  God,  at  the  highest  place,  that  is,  of  honor 
and  of  power.  He  can  vouchsafe  its  presence  where 


282  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

and  how  He  pleases,  and  sacraments  He  ordains  as 
special  meeting-points  with  Himself. 

If  the  question  be  asked  how  and  in  what  way 
is  the  Lord  present  in  the  sacrament,  our  reply 
must  always  be,  that  the  Church  as  a  whole  refuses 
to  define  the  nature  of  the  Lord's  presence.  She 
does  not  say,  that  He  is  present  by  "Transubstan- 
tiation,"  or  "Impanation,"  or  "Consubstantia- 
tion."  She  believes  and  teaches  the  fact  of  His 
presence,  without  professing  to  understand  the 
mode  of  that  presence.  She  affirms  that  it  is  ob- 
jective, and  not  a  subjective  consciousness ;  that  it 
is  real,  and  not  imaginary ;  that  it  is  mystical  and 
spiritual  and  not  matei^ial,  and  beyond  this  she 
cannot  go. 

Just  at  this  point  a  Protestant  may  say.  You 
interpret  what  Christ  says  about  the  sacraments 
literally,  while  equally  intelligent  and  scholarly 
men  interpret  the  same  passages  as  being  figura- 
tive.    How  can  I  decide  who  is  right? 

We  reply,  You  cannot  decide  the  matter  on 
the  Protestant  principle,  because  the  argument 
which  seems  conclusive  to  one  man,  may  not  to 
another.  And  so  right  here  is  a  good  illustration 
of  the  difference  between  the  Protestant  and  the 
Catholic  way  of  settling  the  matter ;  for  if  you  dis- 
pute the  sacramental  interpretation,  the  Catholic 
Churchman  appeals  at  once  to  that  which  alone 
can  settle  the  matter,  namely,  the  constant  teaching 
of  the  Church  from  the  very  first,  explaining  the 
sense  in  which  the  Bible  is  to  be  understood.    Has 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  283 

the  Church  always  taught  the  doctrine  of  sacra- 
mental grace  ?  Most  certainly  it  has,  always, 
everywhere,  and  among  all  people,  from  the  very 
first,  when  her  first  teachers  were  in  personal  con- 
tact with  those  who  wrote  the  New  Testament, 
down  through  every  age.  From  Ignatius,  Justin 
Martyr,  and  Irenaeus,  down,  nothing  can  be  more 
certain  than  that  the  Church  taught  that  in  Bap- 
tism the  new  birth  of  spiritual  regeneration  was 
given,  and  that  in  the  Holy  Eucharist  the  Lord 
Christ  was  truly  present  to  offer  Himself  to  and 
for  men.  There  was  no  other  teaching  about  the 
matter  anywhere  throughout  the  Christian  world 
for  over  a  thousand  years.  This  sacramental 
teaching  was  afiirmed  and  reafiinned  in  the  earliest 
commentaries  on  the  Bible,  in  the  writing  of  the 
Fathers,  and  in  the  liturgies  and  formularies  of 
the  Church,  as  well  as  in  the  homilies  of  its  pas- 
tors. This  settles  the  question  for  a  Churchman; 
and  it  is  the  only  possible  way  it  can  be  settled. 
If  the  Holy  Spirit  has  ever  produced  unanimous 
consent  in  the  mind  of  the  Church,  it  certainly 
has  in  this  case,  that  God  gives  grace  through  sac- 
ramental media. 

Two  very  common  objections  ought  to  be  con- 
sidered here.  If  God  gives  grace  ordinarily  neces- 
sary to  salvation  through  the  sacraments,  are  we 
not  forced  to  believe  that  every  unbaptized  man 
is  lost?  No,  certainly  not;  for  multitudes  of  un- 
baptized men  are  such,  not  from  choice,  but  from 
ignorance,  or  defective  education,  or  the  lack  of 


284  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

any  opportunity  to  learn  the  importance  of  Bap- 
tism; and  no  man  can  be  condemned  for  that  for 
which  he  is  not  himself  responsible.  God  is  not 
bound  in  such  cases  by  the  limitations  of  His  own 
system,  however  much  we  are  who  are  brought  into 
intelligent  contact  with  it;  and  we  hope  and  be- 
lieve, that  in  some  way,  God  will  ultimately  com- 
pensate all  men  who  love  the  truth  and  seek  Him, 
for  what  they  lose  through  ignorance  of  the 
Church. 

But,  mark  you,  such  a  man  is  in  a  far  different 
position  from  one  who,  knowing  the  truth,  and 
coming  into  contact  with  the  Church,  learns  its 
full  teaching,  and  then  deliberately  rejects  it  and 
refuses  to  receive  its  sacraments.  Such  a  refusal 
is  very  perilously  near  to  rejecting  the  Lord  Him- 
self, if  we  are  to  take  what  He  says  of  the  Church 
as  the  truth. 

Another  objection  to  the  sacramental  system 
is  this :  Men  say,  "I  believe  in  spiritual  worship, 
and  I  do  not  want  to  have  any  forms  come  in  be- 
tween my  soul  and  God." 

Certainly  not,  if  the  sacraments  are  mere 
forms;  but  if  they  are  means  by  which  the  Lord 
assures  us  of  His  nearness,  and  brings  us  into 
spiritual  touch  with  Himself,  then  they  cannot 
come  in  between  us  and  God ;  on  the  contrary,  they 
bind  us  to  God.  This  objection  springs  from  the 
failure  to  realize  the  true  nature  of  the  sacraments ; 
and  if  it  applies  at  all,  applies  to  the  Protestant 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  285 

notion  that  sacraments  are  only  empty  forms.  Men 
talk  about  spiritual  worship  without  forms ;  but 
it  is  doubtful  if  any  Protestant  ever  has  such  an 
intense  realization  of  our  Lord's  real  presence  as 
an  object  of  worship,  as  does  the  Catholic  Church- 
man when,  in  the  Holy  Eucharist,  he  believes  that 
his  Lord  comes  to  him,  as  at  no  other  time,  and  in 
no  other  way.  The  whole  Eucharistic  action,  with 
its  beautiful  symbolism,  its  stately  liturgical  order, 
its  solemn  progression  toward  one  supreme  thought 
and  fact,  is  but  the  means  by  which  the  imagina- 
tion is  roused,  and  the  heart  is  lifted  into  a  sense 
of  the  Lord's  presence,  from  which,  finally,  all 
consciousness  of  form  is  hanislied,  and  one  "sees 
no  man  save  Jesus  only." 

This,  of  course,  must  be  experienced  to  be 
understood;  but  it  is  the  truth,  and  the  all-suffi- 
cient answer  to  the  dread  of  formalism  interfering 
between  the  soul  and  God  in  worship. 

Here  we  must  meet  one  more  objection  which 
is  frequently  made.  If  the  Catholic  Church  pos- 
sesses any  special  means  of  grace,  why  do  not  those 
who  have  access  to  them,  show  signs  of  greater 
holiness  than  they  do? 

We  reply,  the  system  is  not  at  fault,  neither  has 
God's  promise  failed ;  but  human  nature  is  weak ; 
and  God's  grace  cannot  act,  unless  men  will  co- 
operate with  it.  Churchmen  fail  lamentably  to 
use  the  grace  God  puts  within  their  reach.  We 
are  not  concerned  to  maintain  our  own  holiness,  or 


286  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

to  deny  that  at  certain  periods,  the  spiritual  life  of 
Churchmen  has  been  at  a  very  low  ebb.  On  the 
contrary,  we  are  inclined  to  call  attention  to  this 
very  fact;  because  it  is  such  marked  evidence  of 
the  vitality  of  the  Church  itself,  of  the  presence 
of  the  life  of  Christ  within  her ;  for  no  matter  how 
sluggish  she  has  been,  no  matter  how  worldly  or 
corrupt  her  clergy  have  become  at  times,  the  spir- 
itual stirring  which  has  renewed  her  has  sprung 
from  luithin,  not  from  ivithout.  One  of  the  most 
convincing  proofs  of  the  divine  character  of  the 
Church,  is  just  this  saci'amental  vitality,  this 
power  ultimately  to  overrule  the  follies  of  her  OAvn 
children,  to  survive  and  assert  her  power,  to  cast 
out  the  evil,  and  renew  her  own  life,  when  men 
have  thought  she  was  dead  or  dying,  and  have 
done  what  they  could  to  destroy  her.  She  never 
could  have  survived  the  shocks  and  sins  of  the  nine- 
teen centuries,  unless  she  had  had  the  Lord  Christ, 
and  the  Holy  Spirit  in  her.  Men  are  constantly 
pointing  out  defects  in  the  local  workings  of  the 
Church  system:  faults  and  foibles  of  her  clergy, 
controversies  between  her  members,  sins  and 
narrowness  of  her  laymen,  but  all  this  is  nothing 
new.  It  is  exactly  what  our  Lord  Himself  said 
would  happen  in  the  history  of  His  Church,  when 
He  foretold  the  co-existence  of  good  and  evil,  in 
the  one  Fold.  It  only  goes  to  show  the  inherent 
vitality  of  the  Church,  by  which  she  can  rise  su- 
perior to  weakness,  and  grow  and  flourish  as  she 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  287 

does/  Sects  rise,  flourish  for  a  few  centuries,  and 
then  disappear,  as  if  what  life  they  had  was  ab- 
normal and  ephemeral ;  and  when  they  commence 
to  disintegrate,  they  show  little  power  of  recupera- 
tion. We  deplore  the  inconsistencies  of  Church- 
men. We  admit  with  shame  much  that  can  truth- 
fully be  said  of  their  weakness  and  selfishness  in 
every  age.  But  the  more  the  existence  of  human 
weakness  in  the  Church  is  emphasized,  the  more 
necessary  it  becomes  to  assume  the  existence  of 
some  supernatural  power  in  the  Church,  which 
could  counteract  and  overcome  this  weakness,  and 
inspire  the  Church's  missionary  success,  and  fire 
the  devotion  of  her  martyrs,  and  form  and  fashion 
the  character  of  her  saints,  and  save  and  vindicate 
her  Faith  in  the  midst  of  widespread  heresy,  and 
convert  and  uplift  men,  and  satisfy  souls  hungry 
for  knowledge  of  God.  The  sins  of  Churchmen 
have  been  so  great,  that  if  the  Church  were  of  hu- 
man origin,  she  would  have  perished  a  thousand 
years  ago.  But  though  wounded  in  hands,  and 
feet,  and  side,  she  is  still  the  Body  of  Christ ;  and 
like  Him  she  is  divine ;  and  proves  her  divinity 
by  her  power  of  resurrection  from  the  dead,  of  her 
own  past. 


-Bishop  Williams  of  Connecticut  used  to  say;  "A  dead 
body  cannot  have  boils.  Boils  are  not  pretty,  but  they  are 
evidences  of  vitality,  and  nature's  effort  to  eliminate  poison 
from  the  system.  A  Church  with  no  imperfection,  no  diffi- 
culties, is  a  dead  Church." 


CHAPTER  XIX 


SACRIFICIAL   WORSHIP 


TN"  THE  last  chapter,  in  speaking  of  the  Blessed 
Sacrament  of  the  Altar,  we  endeavored  to  show 
that  the  only  consistent  interpretation  of  Holy 
Scripture,  as  given  by  the  Fathers  and  accepted 
by  the  whole  Church  from  the  first,  leads  us  to 
believe  that  our  Lord  gives  us  His  Body  and  His 
Blood  under  the  forms  of  bread  and  wine,  in  the 
Holy  Eucharist ;  and  so  is  Himself  present,  not  as 
a  dead  Christ,  but  as  our  living  Lord,  to  feed  us 
with  heavenly  food. 

We  believe  that  in  this  way  the  Lord  responds 
to  the  well  nigh  universal  longing  for  the  manifes- 
tation of  His  Presence  among  men ;  for  some  sign 
by  which  they  can  apprehend  His  nearness,  and  be 
sure  of  receiving  His  blessing.  i 

This  aspect  of  the  Blessed  Sacrament  is  one 
in  which  God  is  represented  as  giving  something 
to  us :  giving  us  Himself,  the  highest  possible  gift 
which  He  can  give. 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  289 

The  question  suggests  itself,  Can  we  give  Him 
anything  in  return?  Is  there  anything  perfect 
enough  to  offer  to  Him  ?  Must  the  giving  be 
wholly  on  God's  side  ?  And  the  answer  to  this 
question  brings  out  another  great  truth,  involved 
in  sacramental  worship,  which  we  must  carefully 
notice ;  and  we  must  ask  what  is  worship  ?  That 
is,  what  is  Christian  worship  as  distinguished 
from  all  kinds  of  worship  which  is  not  Christian  ? 
Or  perhaps,  to  be  more  accurate,  what  is  Catholic 
worship,  in  distinction  from  the  Protestant  idea 
of  worship  ? 

The  Protestant  as  a  rule  will  tell  you  that  he 
goes  to  church  to  get  something :  spiritual  help  and 
comfort,  the  truth  of  God's  Word,  new  inspirations 
for  right  living,  consolation  when  he  is  depressed 
or  disheartened,  and  answers  to  prayers  of  various 
kinds.  Now  no  doubt  it  is  right  to  expect  and 
ask  for  all  these  things  when  we  worship  God ;  but 
as  a  matter  of  fact,  if  such  petitions  furnish  the 
only,  or  the  chief  motive  for  going  to  church,  then 
worship  must  be  a  very  selfish  thing.  On  the 
other  hand,  the  Catholic  Churchman  goes  to  church 
not  chiefly  or  primarily  to  get  anything  \  but  to 
give  something  to  God.  He  believes  that  he  must 
give  something,  before  he  has  the  right  to  ask 
anything.  He  must  give  his  praise,  his  love,  his 
obedience,  and  his  dutiful  submission,  which  is 
due  from  a  creature  to  his  Creator.  He  must  offer 
his  thanksgiving  for  God's  mercies,  and  his  body 
and  soul  and  his  alms,  in  God's  service. 


290  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

But  right  here  we  encounter  a  difficulty ;  for  if 
we  venture  to  offer  anything  to  God,  we  n>ust  re- 
member that  nothing  is  worthy  of  Him,  but  that 
which  is  perfect,  holy,  and  without  spot  or  blemish, 
or  taint  of  sin.  What  have  we,  what  power  or  fac- 
ulty of  mind  or  body,  which  has  not  been  stained 
or  marred  by  sin,  and  which  is  worthy  to  present 
to  God  ?  Has  our  body  shared  in  no  sin,  our  eyes 
gazed  upon  nothing  unlawful,  our  lips  uttered  no 
untruth,  our  hearts  burned  with  no  low  passion, 
or  malicious  hatred,  or  spirit  of  envy  ?  Has  our 
faith  never  been  wavering,  our  praise  faint  or 
formal,  our  repentance  shallow  and  soon  forgot- 
ten? If  we  conclude  thau  the  highest  type  of 
worship  is  that  in  which  we  offer  something  to  God, 
we  seem  to  be  confronted  with  the  fact,  that  we 
have  nothing  which  is  worthy  to  he  ojfered  to  Him; 
not  even  ourselves,  separated  as  we  are  from  Him 
by  our  sins.  Something  must  come  in  between 
us  and  God,  and  sanctify  and  cleanse  whatever 
we  offer  Him,  before  He  can  accept  it. 

In  God's  plan  of  salvation  the  terrible  evil 
of  sin  is  met  by  the  great  fact  of  our  redemption, 
through  the  precious  Blood  of  Christ.  So  that 
the  central  fact  of  Man's  redemption  is  the  sacri- 
fice of  Calvary,  on  our  behalf.  The  Lord  Himself 
being  without  touch  or  taint  of  sin,  offered  Him- 
self upon  the  Cross,  as  the  one  pure  offering,  per- 
fectly acceptable  to  God,  for  the  sins  of  the  whole 
world;  and  if  we  are  to  approach  God,  and  offer 
ourselves   to   Him,   in   some   way   the   merits   of 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  291 

Christ's  Sacrifice  must  be  transferred  to  us  as 
individuals.  We  must  have  some  share  in  offering 
this  one  perfect  sacrifice,  to  God  the  Father. 

Since  the  time  of  Abel,  God  has  provided  some 
act  of  worship  by  which  the  worshipper  is  brought 
into  union  with  the  Lord's  Sacrifice,  and  by  which 
his  praise  and  offerings  may  thus  become  pure 
and  perfect,  in  God's  sight.  Whatever  virtues 
the  Jewish  sacrifices  had,  were  derived  from  the 
fact  that  God  appointed  them  as  memorials  of 
the  one  Sacrifice  on  the  Cross.  They  constantly 
looked  forward  to  it.  So  in  every  age,  men  can 
approach  God,  only  as  they  plead  that  sacrifice. 
Now  if  all  Jewish  worship  was  sacrificial,  because 
it  looked  forward  to  Calvary,  must  there  not  be 
some  distinctively  Christian  act  of  Worship,  by 
which  Christian  men  can  plead  the  Lord's  Sacri- 
fice before  the  Father,  and  so  share  in  the  merits 
of  that  Sacrifice? 

In  all  our  prayers,  we  ask  that  God  will  grant 
our  petitions  for  Christ's  sake,  or  through  Jesus 
Christ  our  Lord:  that  is,  through  the  Sacrifice  of 
Christ;  and  so  all  Christian  prayer  must  be  sac- 
rificial :  that  is,  it  must  be  brought  into  association 
with  the  one  great  Sacrifice  in  some  way. 

The  Catholic  Church  and  the  Bible  teach 
that  there  is  at  least  one  act  of  worship  which  is 
peculiar  to  Christianity:  the  only  one  our  Lord 
Himself  instituted,  and,  so  far  as  Holy  Scripture 
testifies,  the  only  act  of  worship  He  commanded 


292  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

His  disciples  to  observe:   and  that  is  the  Holy 
Eucharist. 

A  Jew,  a  Mohammedan,  a  Hindu,  might  have 
a  service  of  prayer;  but  no  one  but  a  Christian 
could  possibly  celebrate  the  Holy  Eucharist.  Now 
the  question  arises,  Is  this  chief  act  of  Christian 
worship,  sacrificial?  Has  it  any  direct  connection" 
with  the  Lord's  Sacrifice  on  Calvary  ?  One  would 
naturally  assume,  or  imagine,  that  the  chief  act 
of  Christian  worship  on  the  part  of  redeemed  men, 
would  have  some  connection  with  the  chief  act 
of  sacrifice,  through  which  their  redemption  was 
accomplished.  The  Church  has  always  taught 
that  the  Holy  Eucharist  is  a  sacrificial  act,  for 
the  following  reasons:  The  prophets  of  the  Old 
Testament  Scriptures,  in  speaking  of  Christian 
worship,  constantly  used  sacrificial  terms  to  ex- 
press its  true  nature.  Eor  instance,  Jeremiah, 
speaking  of  the  reign  of  the  Messiah,  saw  under 
Him,  priests  and  Levites  "doing  sacrifice  contin- 
ually." Malachi  foretells  the  offering  of  "incense 
and  a  pure  offering,"  among  the  Gentiles.  He 
says,  "The  Messiah  shall  purify  the  sons  of  Levi, 
that  they  may  offer  unto  the  Lord  an  offering  in 
righteousness."  Isaiah  says,  "The  sons  of  the 
stranger  that  join  themselves  to  the  Lord.  .  .  . 
Even  them  will  I  bring  to  My  holy  mountain,  and 
make  them  joyful  in  My  house  of  prayer;  their 
burnt  offerings  and  their  sacrifices  shall  be  ac- 
cepted upon  Mine  altar,  for  Mine  house  shall  be 
called  a  house  of  prayer  for  all  nations." 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  293 

If  we  turn  to  the  writings  of  the  great  Fathers 
of  the  Christian  Church,  to  the  works  of  Clement, 
the  companion  of  the  Apostles,  of  Igpatius,  Justin 
Martyr,  Irenaeus,  and  Cyprian,  and  later,  of 
Athanasius,  Augustine,  and  Chrysostom,  we  find 
that  these  men,  without  exception,  regarded  the 
Holy  Eucharist  as  the  great  sacificial  act  of 
Christian  worship;  and  moreover  all  the  great 
primitive  liturgies  of  the  Church  use  sacrificial 
terms  in  the  Celebration  itself,  to  set  forth  the 
meaning  of  the  sacramental  action.  The  Holy 
Eucharist  was  often  called  "the  Holy  Sacrifice," 
or  "the  Unbloody  Sacrifice,"  or  "the  Sacrifice  of 
the  Altar." 

We  believe  that  the  Sacrament  is  a  sacrificial 
act,  again,  because  our  Lord  used  sacrificial  acts 
and  words,  when  He  instituted  the  Holy  Eucharist. 
Our  Lord  took  bread  and  brake  it,  and  said,  "Take, 
eat ;  this  is  My  Body  which  is  given  for  you"  ;  and 
of  the  cup  He  said,  "Drink  ye  all  of  it,  for  this  is 
My  Blood  of  the  New  Covenant  which  is  shed  for 
you"  (Matt.  xxvi.  26 ;  Mark  xiv.  22 ;  Luke  xxii. 
19;  L  Cor.  xi.  24).  Our  Lord's  Body  was  given 
as  a  sacrifice ;  and  His  Blood  was  shed  in  sacrifice ; 
and  His  words  strictly  translated  read,  "This  is 
My  Body  which  is  beiiig  given  for  you,  is  being 
broken" ;  that  is.  His  Body  was  then-  and  there, 
at  the  time  of  the  institution  given  and  surrendered 
to  His  Father  as  a  sacrifice,  by  an  act  of  will,  on 
His  part ;  though  the  actual  immolation  took  place 
the  next  day.     If  Christ  thus  offered  Himself  to 


294  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

His  Father  in  the  Holy  Eucharist,  and  if  He  told 
His  disciples  to  break  the  bread,  as  He  broke  it, 
and  to  say  what  He  had  said  over  the  cup,  in  short 
to  do  what  He  did,  then  their  act  must  in  some  way 
be  identical  with  His;  and  His  offering  must  be 
perpetuated  in  the  Holy  Eucharist. 

In  the  Holy  Eucharist  to  the  outward  sign  of 
the  bread  is  added  the  inner  gift  of  His  Body 
broken,  and  to  the  wine  His  Blood  shed,  separated 
from  each  other,  as  in  His  sacrificial  death  upon 
the  Cross,  and  so  the  Blessed  Sacrament  is  a  mem- 
orial of  His  death. 

Then  we  believe  that  the  Holy  Eucharist  is 
a  sacrificial  act,  because  our  Lord  instituted  it  at 
the  time  of  the  Passover,  which  was  the  most 
intensely  sacrificial  of  all  the  Jewish  festivals. 
He  had  probably  just  partaken  of  the  passover 
lamb,  when  He  instituted  the  sacrament;  and  the 
Apostles  present  must  have  understood  His  action 
in  a  sacrificial  sense.  He  Himself  is  called  the 
true  Paschal  Lamb.  He  is  "Christ  our  Passover," 
and  so  all  Jewish  sacrifices  are  fulfilled  in  Him. 

Then  again  when  our  Lord  broke  the  bread  and 
poured  out  the  wine,  as  His  Body  was  broken  and 
His  Blood  was  shed  in  the  sacrifice  of  the  Cross, 
He  said,  "Do  this  in  remembrance  of  Me."  The 
word  translated  "remembrance,"  is  Anamnesis,  a 
word  which  is  used  in  the  Old  Testament  to  denote 
sacrificial  remembrance  or  offering;  and  the  word 
translated  "Do  this"  is  equivalent  to  Offer  this, 
and  so  our  Lord's  expression  may  be  translated 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  295 

"Offer  this  as  a  sacrificial  remembrance  of  Me." 
So  we  believe  that  while  the  Holy  Eucharist  can- 
not be  a  sacrifice  in  the  sense  that  our  Lord's  death 
can  be  in  any  way  repeated,  or  that  the  sacrifice 
of  the  cross  is  in  any  way  insufficient,  or  needs  to 
be  supplemented,  yet  it  is  a  sacrifice,  in  the  sense 
that  in  the  Holy  Eucharist  our  Lord's  Body 
broken,  and  His  Blood  shed,  that  is,  His  sacrificial 
death,  is  set  forth  before  the  Father,  by  acts  and 
words,  which  our  Lord  Himself  prescribes;  so 
that  in  the  Blessed  Sacrament,  Christ  is  both 
Priest  and  Victim ;  both  that  which  is  offered,  and 
the  one  who  offers. 

Tn  the  Jewish  ritual,  the  High  Priest  on  the 
Day  of  Atonement  took  the  blood  of  the  victim 
which  had  already  been  slain,  and  entered  within 
the  veil,  into  the  Holy  of  Holies  in  the  Temple, 
to  sprinkle  the  Mercy  Seat  with  the  blood;  and 
thus  to  plead  or  present  the  sacrifice,  just  offered, 
for  himself  and  for  his  people.  So  our  Lord, 
having  offered  the  sacrifice  of  the  Cross,  as  a 
High  Priest,  "by  His  own  Blood  He  entered  in 
once  into  the  Holy  place,  having  obtained  eternal 
redemption  for  us"  (Heb.  ix.  12),  and  He  as  a 
"priest  forever"  (Heb.  vii.  17),  "having  somewhat 
to  offer"  (Heb.  viii.  3),  and  "ever  living  to  make 
intercession  for  us"  (Heb.  vii.  25),  before  the 
Father,  pleads  His  own  sacrifice  on  our  behalf  in 
Heaven. 

When  St.  John  had  a  vision  of  heavenly  wor- 
ship, he  saw  "a  Lamb  (standing)  as  it  had  been 


296  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

slain"  (Kev.  v.  6),  that  is,  "The  Lamb  who  taketh 
away  the  sin  of  the  world,"  carrying  on  His  media- 
torial work  in  Heaven. 

In  the  Holy  Eucharist  our  Lord  has  provided 
the  means  whereby  we  are  allowed  to  join  in  His 
sacrificial  presentation  of  Himself  to  the  Father; 
whereby  under  the  limits  of  time  and  space,  we 
occasionally  do  that  which  He  is  always  doing. 
In  the  Holy  Eucharist  time  and  space  are,  so  to 
speak,  annihilated ;  and  every  altar  in  the  Cath- 
olic Church  is  caught  up  into  union  with  the 
Heavenly  Altar;  all  priests  are  merged  into  the 
one  eternal  priesthood  of  the  Lord,  and  He  It  is 
who  offers  Himself.  He  it  is  who  lets  us  offer 
Him.  He  it  is  who,  having  united  us  to  Himself, 
in  offering  Himself,  offers  us  to  His  Father. 

Here  then  at  least,  we  have  one  perfect  gift, 
which  we  can  present  to  God  in  our  worship. 
Here  then,  we  have  an  offering,  in  union  with 
which  we  can  offer  to  God  our  prayers,  our  praises, 
ourselves,  our  souls,  our  bodies,  our  faith,  our 
penitence,  and  our  devotion;  because  the  sacrifice 
of  Christ  cleanses  these  gifts,  remedies  their  de- 
fects, supplies  their  deficiencies,  makes  them  per- 
fect, and  complete,  and  so  worthy  of  God's  accept- 
ance. "We  (Christians)  have  an  Altar"  (Heb. 
xiii.  10),  in  the  highest  and  truest  sense  of  the 
word  on  which  "we  do  show  forth  the  Lord's  death 
until  He  come"  (I.  Cor.  xi.  26).  This,  in  un- 
technical  language,  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Euchar- 
istic  Sacrifice ;  and  this  doctrine  is  clearly  set  forth 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  297 

in  the  language  of  the  Consecration  Prayer,  the 
Canon  of  the  Liturgy  (see  Chapter  XXI.). 

If  then  the  Celebration  of  the  Holy  Eucharist 
is  the  chief  means  instituted  by  the  Lord  Himself, 
by  which  we  are  brought  into  touch  with  our 
Lord's  Sacrifice,  by  which  we  are  allowed  to  pre- 
sent it  to  the  Father,  and  in  union  with  which 
we  can  present  our  souls  and  bodies,  our  alms  and 
oblations,  and  our  prayers  and  thanksgivings,  then 
this  service  must  be  the  highest  possible,  and  the 
central  act  of  Christian  worship  to  which  all  other 
private  and  public  prayers  must  be  subordinate. 

It  is  for  this  reason  that  it  is  the  one  serv- 
ice of  the  Church  which  Christians  are  bound  to 
attend;  the  service  which  must  precede  all  others 
in  importance  on  the  Lord's  Day,  and  which  must 
be  distinguished  from  all  others,  and  honored 
above  all  others,  in  inward  devotion,  outward  rev- 
erence, and  orderly  ritual.  The  central  and  con- 
spicuous position  of  the  Altar,  the  vestments,  the 
lights,  the  orderly  ceremonial,  the  extreme  rever- 
ence in  word  and  posture,  all  these  things  indicate 
unmistakably  the  fact  that  the  Holy  Eucharist  is 
the  great  Christian  Sacrifice,  the  one  distinctively 
Christian  act  of  worship  in  the  Catholic  Church, 
the  chief  means  by  which  the  benefits  of  our  Lord's 
Sacrifice  on  the  Cross  are  applied  to  the  needs  of 
individual  worshippers. 

The  fact  that  the  Holy  Eucharist  is  a  sacri- 
ficial act,  as  well  as  a  communion,  is  the  reason 
why,  when  for  any  reason  a  communicant  is  not 


298  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

prepared  to  receive  the  Blessed  Sacrament,  it  is 
far  better  to  remain  through  the  celebration,  and 
make  it  a  time  of  special  prayer  and  adoration, 
than  it  is  to  go  away  and  leave  the  altar  in  the 
middle  of  the  service,  just  at  that  point  when  the 
Lord  comes  to  bless  and  minister  at  the  altar  on 
our  behalf ;  and  thus,  as  it  were,  to  turn  our  backs 
upon  Him. 

This,  mark  you,  is  not  in  the  least  to  discourage 
sacramental  communion,  but  it  is  to  assert  in  the 
plainest  terms,  that  to  be  present  at  the  highest 
act  of  Christian  worship,  and  remain  through  it, 
whether  one  communicates  or  not,  is  always  better 
than  to  turn  away  from  it,  as  though  it  were  a 
matter  of  indifference  to  us. 

The  question  is  not  between  "communicating 
attendance,"  and  "non-communicating  attend- 
ance," but  between  "non-communicating  attend- 
ance," and  non-communicating  no/i-attendance : 
that  is,  between  staying  and  praying,  and  going 
away  and  not  praying.  No  one  pretends  for  a  mo- 
ment, that  a  communicant  who  remains  without 
receiving,  receives  the  full  benefit  of  the  sacra- 
ment itself ;  but  at  least,  it  must  be  better  for  such 
a  person  to  offer  his  prayers  in  union  with  the 
Sacrificial  offering,  than  to  go  away,  and  claim  no 
privilege  of  any  sort;  to  offer  our  Lord  no  recog- 
nition whatever  of  His  Sacramental  Presence:  to 
neglect  altogether  the  highest  act  of  Christian  wor- 
ship on  the  Lord's  Day. 


CHAPTER  XX 

THE  RATIONALE   OF  RITUAL 

771  HEN  a  visitor  who  is  not  accustomed  to  lit- 
W  iirgical  worship,  enters  a  Catholic  church, 
that  which  impresses  him  most  as  characteristic  of 
its  worship,  is  the  use  of  ritual  forms. 

They  may  impress  him  favorably,  they  may 
confuse  him,  or  perhaps  they  may  strike  him  as 
superstitious,  or  as  savoring  of  what  he  calls  "Ro- 
manism." At  any  rate,  they  seem  to  be  the  most 
striking  feature  of  the  service  which  he  attends. 

It  is  perhaps  natural  that  he  should  imagine 
that  the  Church  makes  a  very  gTeat  deal  of  the  use 
of  "ritual,"  and  is,  as  he  has  heard  people  say, 
"given  over  to  ecclesiastical  millinery  and  formal- 
ism." Now  as  a  matter  of  fact,  however  useful 
ceremonial  may  be,  the  Church  does  not  value  it 
for  its  own  sake,  and  does  not  give  any  exagger- 
ated importance  to  it.  If  a  priest  were  to  cele- 
brate the  Holy  Communion  without  conspicuous 
ritual  of  any  sort,  with  the  woods  in  place  of  a 


300  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

church,  and  a  rocWii  place  of  an  altar,  the  sacra- 
ment would  be  valid  as  an  act  of  worship,  and 
might  be  quite  as  acceptable  to  God.  When 
Anglican  Churchmen  contend  for  the  use  of  any 
point  of  ceremonial,  as  they  do  sometimes,  even  in 
courts  of  law,  or  in  the  face  of  great  local  preju- 
dice, the  contention  is  not  for  the  liberty  to  use 
forms  for  their  own  sake,  but  because  the  cere- 
monial represents,  and  stands  for,  vital  truths, 
which  must  be  defended ;  because  they  are  part  of 
the  Church's  Faith.  The  American  flag  is  noth- 
ing but  a  jjiece  of  bunting,  and  its  use  is  merely 
ritual  form.  But  any  American  citizen  would 
defend  the  flag,  and  resent  an  insult  to  it.  Why? 
Because  it  is  a  symbol,  which  represents  the 
authority  and  dignity  of  the  Government  of  the 
United  States;  and  its  defence  is  the  defence  of 
certain  vital  principles  at  the  basis  of  free  govern- 
ment and  the  integrity  of  the  nation. 

Churchmen  who  are  accustomed  to  the  use  of 
ceremonial,  and  understand  what  it  means,  think 
very  little  about  it,  one  way  or  the  other.  It  is 
to  them  simply  a  minor  part  of  a  great  system,  hav- 
ing its  legitimate,  though  subordinate  place  in 
worship.  Ceremonial  is  made  conspicuous  chiefly 
by  those  who  oppose  it,  not  by  those  who  use  it. 
But  supposing  it  is  not  of  the  first  importance, 
must  it  therefore  be  discarded?  Has  it  no  use? 
We  hear  men  who  oppose  the  use  of  ritual,  some- 
times contrast  the  importance  of  "saving  souls," 
with  "wasting  time  about  forms  and  ceremonies" ; 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  301 

as  if  a  Church  which  used  forms,  could  not,  and 
did  not,  save  souls ;  and  as  if  souls  were  saved  just 
in  proportion  as  all  forms  were  cast  aside.  This 
certainly  is  nonsense.  There  is  not  the  slightest 
reason  to  assume  that  because  men  are  absorbed  in 
the  gi'eat  vital  issues  and  interests  of  religion,  the 
minor  details  of  it  must  be  neglected;  and  it  is 
equally  illogical  to  assume,  that  because  the  priests 
of  the  Church  provide  for  the  details  of  a  proper 
ritual,  they  therefore  neglect  the  weightier  matters 
of  the  law.  Public  opinion  is  slowly  coming  to 
admit  that  there  is  no  group  of  men  in  the  religious 
world  who  are  more  in  earnest,  more  devoted  to  the 
poor,  more  spiritually  minded,  and  more  successful 
in  making  converts,  than  those  who  have  been  com- 
monly stigmatized  as  "Ritualists." 

God,  so  to  speak,  spends  just  as  much  time,  and 
thought,  and  care,  in  constructing  the  tiny  leaves 
of  a  little  fern,  hidden  in  the  cleft  of  some  rock 
where  no  man  will  ever  see  it,  as  He  does  in  re- 
deeming and  saving  the  world ;  that  is,  relatively  to 
the  importance  of  the  two  things..  God  loves  care 
and  perfection  in  the  minutest  detail;  and  to  neg- 
lect or  scorn  minor  matters  merely  because  they  are 
not  vital  issues,  is  the  part  of  human  infirmity, 
never  of  the  Divine  plan  or  purpose,  in  religion  or 
anywhere  else. 

Wherever  organized  society  exists  at  all,  you 
must  have  ritual  of  some  sort.  The  customs  and 
habits  of  good  society  are  but  the  ritual  of  good 
breeding,  by  which  men  express  mutual  respect. 


302  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

The  etiquette  observed  in  military  and  naval  life, 
or  in  official  circles  at  the  Capitol,  is  necessary  to 
maintain  respect  for  office  and  authority,  vested 
in  the  Government.  You  cannot  possibly  abolish 
ritual  and  ceremonial  forms,  and  when  the  Friends 
or  Quakers  undertook  to  do  this,  they  adopted  the 
most  formal  manner  of  speaking  and  dressing  pos- 
sible ;  and  so  made  themselves  conspicuous  by  their 
Quaker  ritual. 

The  question  presents  itself.  What  is  the 
rationale  of  ritual  which  justifies  its  use  in  the 
worship  of  the  Church?  And  the  answer  is,  that 
ritual  of  any  sort  is  simply  a  medium  for  the  ex- 
pression of  truth.  Every  teaching  system  has  its 
symbolism,  because  truth  necessarily  clothes  itself 
in  symbols.  As  a  rule,  men  act  as  they  feel,  or 
believe ;  and  if  the  inspiration  of  any  act  prompted 
by  religious  feeling  be  continuous,  or  recurs  fre- 
quently, then  the  act  becomes  habitual;  and  the 
habit  establishes  a  custom,  which  the  Church 
adopts,  and  regulates  by  law ;  and  thus  a  system  of 
ritual  is  developed,  through  which  her  teaching 
finds  its  expression.  So  perhaps  we  can  define 
ritual  as  a  system  of  observances,  which  appeals  to 
the  imagination  and  the  heart  through  the  senses, 
by  ceremonial  acts  or  symbols;  and  thus  both  ex- 
presses and  stimulates  religious  feeling.  * 

Reverence  is  not  merely  the  inward  and  spirit- 
ual condition  of  the  mind,  but  it  is  also  the  out- 


^  Gratacap's  Philosophy  of  Ritual. 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  303 

ward  and  visible  expression  of  this  attitude,  in  acts 
and  words.  You  cannot  divorce  action  from 
thought  or  belief,  any  more  than  you  can  divide 
the  spirit  from  the  body,  and  expect  the  man  to 
live. 

The  existence  of  ritual  in  the  Church  implies 
a  constitutional  necessity  in  men,  to  express  their 
feelings  in  outward  and  sensible  form;  which  in 
its  turn,  stimulates  the  very  emotion  it  expresses. 
This  fact  needs  constant  emphasis,  because 
Protestantism,  in  its  attempt  to  spiritualize  re- 
ligion, has  largely  lost  sight  of  the  essential  con- 
nection between  the  soul  and  the  body ;  and  there- 
fore between  truth  and  the  things  which  embody 
and  express  truth.  We  are  not  angels  or  spirits ; 
we  are  men.  The  soul  must  always  be  reached 
through  the  senses,  and  the  spirit  must  express  it- 
self through  these  same  senses  by  act  and  word. 

The  soul  dwells  in  a  material  body,  and  its  life 
is  conditioned  by  it.  God  always  deals  with  men 
as  men,  and  not  as  spirits.  He  teaches  them 
through  the  senses  in  religion,  as  everywhere  else. 
The  Church's  ritual  system  is  built,  in  the  first 
place,  on  this  essential  necessity  of  teaching  truth 
in  forms,  which  the  senses  can  apprehend.  Then, 
in  the  second  place,  beside  symbols,  there  are  sym- 
bolic acts,  which  take  place  during  worship.  The 
common  Protestant  notion  is,  that  worship  is 
purely  a  matter  of  the  spirit ;  and  that  outward  acts 
are  of  little  consequence.  But  the  body  is  made 
by  God,  is  redeemed  by  Christ,  and  sanctified  by 


304  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

the  Holy  Spirit.  It  is  an  essential  part  of  the  man 
himself,  and  is  to  be  raised  from  death.  Why 
should  it  not  take  part  in  worship,  have  its  own 
peculiar  duties,  its  own  share  in  adoration, 
acknowledge  its  own  debt,  in  its  o^vn  way,  by  out- 
ward postures  which  are  expressive  of  the  attitude 
of  the  heart,  as  in  kneeling,  standing,  and  bowing  ? 
Everyone  must  certainly  have  observed  the  fact 
that  men  instinctively  change  their  attitudes  with 
changes  of  their  feeling ;  and  a  change  of  attitude, 
prescribed  by  custom  in  worship,  is  the  best  pos- 
sible reminder  of  a  change  in  the  character  of  wor- 
ship itself. 

Whenever  God  undertakes  to  cultivate  the 
religious  sense  in  men,  in  any  dispensation.  He 
provides  a  place  in  His  system  for  a  symbolic  rit- 
ual. God's  method  is  illustrated  and  typified  in 
His  interview  with  Moses  at  the  burning  bush. 
There  was,  first  of  all,  a  local  manifestation  of 
God's  Presence;  then  secondly,  a  special  sign  of 
that  presence,  "the  burning  bush" ;  then  thirdly  a 
special  sanctity  conferred  by  the  Presence,  "The 
ground  Avhereon  thou  standest  is  holy  ground"; 
then  fourthly,  a  special  ritual  act  prescribed  by 
God  in  recognition  of  that  Presence ;  that  is,  Moses 
was  told  to  "remove  his  shoes  from  off  his  feet." 

In  the  Jewish  Tabernacle  and  Temple  a  special 
manifestation  of  God's  presence  was  vouchsafed  in 
the  Shekinah  of  light,  which  hovered  over  the 
mercy-seat  in  the  Holy  of  Holies.    This  was  itself 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  305 

a  type  and  promise  of  the  Incarnation,  when  God 
would  tabernacle  among  His  people. 

Certainly  am'  local  sign  of  God's  Presence 
calls  for  special  recognition  of  that  Presence ;  and 
no  man  in  either  dispensation,  be  he  Jew  or  Chris- 
tian, can  believe  that  God  appoints  special  times 
and  places  and  media  of  peculiar  access  to  Him, 
and  come  into  that  Presence,  with  the  common- 
place manners,  thoughts,  dress,  and  conduct  of 
ordinary  life.  Such  a  proceeding  would  be  con- 
trary to  every  natural  instinct  of  reverence,  and 
every  prompting  of  faith ;  and  if  a  man  did  it,  we 
would  naturally  suspect  that  he  failed  entirely  to 
realize  into  whose  august  Presence  he  had  ventured 
to  come. 

When  God  willed  to  provide  a  proper  and 
formal  method  of  expressing  reverence  for  Himself 
in  worship,  two  men,  on  separate  occasions,  were 
allowed  to  see  something  of  the  worship  of  pure 
spirits  in  Heaven.  Moses  was  taken  up  on  to 
Mount  Sinai,  and  to  him  was  revealed  a  pattern 
of  worship,  which  he  was  to  embody  in  the  Jewish 
ritual.  St.  John  was  removed  to  the  lonely 
island  of  Patmos,  and  to  him  was  revealed  a  vision 
of  heavenly  worship.  Moses  had  a  vision  of  the 
worship  of  the  Church  in  its  preparatory  stage, 
and  St.  John  a  vision  of  the  worship  of  the  Church 
triumphant;  and  there  is  a  most  striking  sim- 
ilarity between  these  two  visions.  If  God  thus 
saw  fit  to  clothe  the  great  spiritual  truths  of  wor- 
ship in  a  series  of  ritual  symbols  which  represented 


306  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

those  truths,  must  we  not  assume  that  such  symbols 
are  not  only  legitimate  in  Christian  worship,  but 
that  it  is  God's  will  that  they  should  be  used  as 
part  of  His  method  of  cultivating  the  religious 
sense,  and  as  being  an  acceptable  expression  of  our 
reverence  for  Him  ? 

In  St.  John's  vision  before  the  throne  of  God 
was  seen  the  Lamb  as  it  had  been  slain,  who  ever 
liveth  to  make  sacrificial  intercession  for  us.  Be- 
fore the  throne  of  God  were  seven  lamps,  which 
represented  the  seven  spirits  of  God.  Incense 
ascended  before  the  throne,  representing  the  sac- 
rificial intercession.  The  worshipping  hosts  bow 
and  adore,  and  chant  together  with  liturgical  uni- 
formity, the  Ter-Sandus,  the  "HOLY,  HOLY, 
HOLY,  Lord  God  Almighty,"  to  the  Blessed 
Trinity. 

To  assume  that  the  Christian  dispensation  is  so 
purely  spiritual  that  there  can  be  no  place  or  func- 
tion for  ritual  in  Christian  worship,  is  gratuitous 
and  irrational,  simply  because  Christians  are  still 
men,  and  are  influenced  by  what  they  see  and  hear, 
just  as  Jews  were,  and  express  themselves  through 
outward  signs,  just  as  human  beings  always  will. 
!N^either  in  nature  nor  in  religion,  does  God  deal 
with  those  He  cares  for  according  to  one  plan  up 
to  a  certain  point,  and  then  suddenly  revolutionize 
all  His  methods,  make  a  break  and  a  leap,  and  be- 
gin on  a  new  system,  as  if  the  old  had  been  a  mis- 
take, or  the  men  with  whom  He  was  dealing  had 
suddenly  become   entirely   different  beings,   with 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  307 

entirely  new  needs.  What  our  Lord  did,  was  not 
to  spintualize  men  above  the  necessity  of  forms, 
hut  to  vitalize  the  forms  themselves,  and  make  them 
means  of  grace,  and  symbols  of  new  truth.  Had 
He  disapproved  of  the  ritual  principle,  He  surely 
would  have  condemned  it,  or  have  stated  plainly 
that  in  a  dispensation  of  grace  ritual  would 
be  out  of  place.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  we  know  that 
as  soon  as  the  Christian  Church  was  free  enough 
from  persecution  to  develop  and  regulate  her  wor- 
ship in  accordance  with  her  doctrine,  she  at  once 
began  to  clothe  her  worship  with  symbolic  ritual, 
resembling  the  ritual  of  heavenly  worship  which 
St.  John  beheld.  This  development  was  so  uni- 
versal and  so  instinctive  throughout  the  Church, 
that  it  must  have  been  but  the  flowering  of  some 
deeply  rooted  principle,  and  in  accord  with  the 
Lord's  will. 

Beside  the  five  physical  senses,  there  are  three 
spiritual  senses :  the  sense  of  the  good,  the  true, 
and  the  beautiful ;  essential  parts  of  human  nature, 
to  which  an  appeal  must  be  made,  and  through 
which  the  soul  acquires  knowledge  of  God.  The 
error  of  Protestantism  has  been  in  treating  men  as 
if  they  were  all  intellect;  as  if  they  could  be 
preached  into  the  fulness  of  the  higher  life  by 
sheer  force  of  conviction,  while  the  love  of  the 
beautiful  in  nature,  art,  and  morals,  was  left  to 
starve.  They  failed  to  see,  as  Martineau  says, 
"that  the  heart  is  to  have  the  primacy  over  the 
head ;  that  the  movement  of  humanity  is  from  the 


308  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

affective  life,  while  the  intellectual  function  is 
simply  regulative  and  selective.  It  is  folly  to 
assume  that  any  growth  in  refined  intellectualism, 
can  ever  render  visible  symbols  of  truth  and  beauty 
of  God  useless,  or  unworthy  attention." 

I^ature's  method  of  education  appeals  quite 
as  much  to  the  eye  by  its  environment,  as  to  the 
ear;  to  the  sense  of  the  beautiful,  as  to  the  sense 
of  truth ;  and  the  Catholic  Church  strives  to  appeal 
to,  and  educate,  the  whole  man,  in  every  possible 
way,  through  every  avenue  of  approach  to  the 
soul.  The  imagination  and  the  emotions  have  a 
mighty  deal  to  do  with  stirring  impulses,  which 
rule  the  life  of  the  man.  Ritual  appeals  to  both, 
and  stimulates  both  as  no  sermon  ever  can. 

A*  Celebration  of  the  Holy  Eucharist  properly 
conducted,  is  worth  much,  not  only  as  an  object 
lesson  in  reverence,  but  also  as  an  effective  means 
of  touching  the  heart,  stimulating  the  imagina- 
tion, and  bringing  home  a  sense  of  the  nearness  of 
God,  His  beauty.  His  love,  and  His  sanctity,  which 
Protestantism  does  not,  and  cannot  give.  This  is 
not  a  theory,  but  a  simple  matter  of  experience, 
to  the  truth  of  which,  multitudes  of  men  are  ready 
to  testify;  who,  educated  in  other  systems,  have 
found  in  the  Church's  sacramental  worship,  that 
supreme  satisfaction  of  the  whole  nature,  which 
they  had  always  craved.  When  a  man,  believing 
in  our  Lord's  sacramental  Presence,  kneels  before 
an  altar  made  beautiful  by  the  best  offerings  which 
love  can  suggest  and  afford,  with  its  symbolism  re- 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  309 

minding  him  of  the  glory  and  sanctity  of  Him  who 
is  to  come ;  when  the  stately  music  touches  the 
heart  and  stirs  the  fount  of  feeling;  when  the 
solemn  reverence  of  ritual  order  lifts  the  soul  above 
the  commonplaces  of  the  world,  into  a  sense  of  an 
awful  Presence ;  when  all  this  stirring  of  the  whole 
nature  centres  itself  around  a  Person,  the  ador- 
able Person  of  Christ  Himself,  present  as  in  no 
other  way,  and  as  at  no  other  time,  coming  to  plead 
the  supreme  expression  of  His  love,  coming  to  bless 
and  heal,  surely  there  is,  and  there  must  be,  a 
power  in  all  this  to  lift  and  stir  the  soul,  which 
nothing  else  can  have.  For  one  to  assume  that  in 
this  there  is  little  that  appeals  to  him,  and  that  it 
is  therefore  useless,  or  trivial,  is  simply  to  make 
the  limitations  of  his  own  mind,  the  measure  of 
all  men's  needs,  privileges,  and  capacities.  No 
man  can  judge  of  the  value  of  ritual,  until  he 
learns  what  it  means,  and  by  its  use  has  been  habit- 
ually educated  to  some  degree  of  appreciation  of 
its  power  and  helpfulness. 

There  are  two  objections  to  the  Church's  ritual 
which  are  very  frequently  made,  even  by  persons 
who  are  more  or  less  attracted  by  it.  We  must  con- 
sider these.  First,  it  is  said  that  the  use  of  rit- 
ual begets  "formalism."  Notice,  the  persons  who 
say  this  generally  do  not  use  ritual.  How  then  do 
they  know  what  it  does,  or  does  not  do?  One  is 
hardly  competent  to  pronounce  upon  that  of  which 
he  knows  nothing  at  all  by  experience. 

What  is   formalism  ?     Is   it  the   presence  of 


310  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

forms  ?  Certainly  not.  It  is  the  absence  of  spirit ; 
and  for  anyone  to  assume  that  because  forms  are 
present,  spirit  is  not,  is  as  absurd  as  to  suppose 
that  because  a  man  has  a  body,  he  can't  have  a 
soul,  or  because  he  has  a  brain,  he  can't  have  a 
mind.  If  a  system  of  ritual  necessarily  begets 
formality,  why  did  God  provide  just  such  a  system 
for  the  Jews,  and  why  did  our  Lord  sanction  such 
a  system  by  His  Presence  at  the  Temple  worship, 
and  His  personal  observance  of  Jewish  ritual  ? 

No  Churchman  for  a  moment  denies  that  ritual 
may  be  abused ;  and  that  men  may  observe  it  me- 
chanically, without  appreciating  what  it  means, 
in  a  formal  way;  and  that  such  abuse  would  be 
bad  for  anyone  who  indulges  in  it ;  but  is  there  any 
religious  privilege  or  observance  of  any  sort  or  de- 
scription, which  cannot  be  abused  ?  A  man  may 
offer  an  extempore  prayer  in  a  Friend's  meet- 
ing house,  and  the  whole  thing  may  be  the  driest 
and  most  formal  observance,  unless  the  man's  heart 
is  in  what  he  says.  You  cannot  get  rid  of  formal- 
ism, by  discarding  ritual.  The  difficulty  is  with 
the  man's  heart,  not  the  form ;  and  if  the  heart  is 
dead,  or  formal,  then  formalism  is  inevitable  under 
any  system,  and  is  as  liable  to  exist  in  a  prayer 
meeting  as  in  a  high  celebration  of  the  Holy 
Eucharist. 

Another  objection  which  perhaps  ought  to  be 
considered  for  a  moment,  is  this :  It  is  sometimes 
said  that  the  use  of  ritual  is  contrary  to  Gospel 
simplicity.     This  is  said,  not  only  in  opposition 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  311 

to  tke  use  of  ritual,  but  also  to  the  whole  liturgical 
and  sacramental  system  of  the  Church ;  and  there- 
fore, it  may  be  well  to  analyze  it,  just  at  this  point. 
Doubtless  the  worship  of  the  Church  does  seem 
confusing  and  elaborate  to  anyone  who  has  not 
been  brought  up  in  it,  and  encounters  it  for  the 
first  time;  but  to  object  to  any  system  because  it 
requires  some  study  and  intelligence  to  understand 
it  and  use  it,  and  because  it  does  not  seem  familiar 
at  first  sight  and  cannot  be  wholly  comprehended 
at  a  glance,  is  to  bring  all  progress  and  develop- 
ment to  a  standstill;  and  if  it  be  applied  to  wor- 
ship, must  necessarily  reduce  it  to  the  level  of  the 
most  stunted  intellect  and  the  dullest  comprehen- 
sion, and  render  it  useless  as  a  teaching  and  uplift- 
ing power,  for  the  average  worshipper.  To  assert 
that  God  hears  the  simplest  word  or  breath  of 
prayer  that  is  offered  to  Him,  is  one  thing.  But 
to  assert  that  the  sacramental  worship  of  the 
Church,  approaching  the  Eternal  Father,  in  the 
name  of  His  incarnate  Son,  and  by  the  power  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  is  without  mystery,  is  easily  com- 
prehensible, is  simple  in  any  rational  sense,  is  to 
betray  an  utter  failure  to  comprehend  the  awful 
truths  on  which  our  salvation  rests.  Simplicity 
in  worship  may  be  but  another  name  for  barren- 
ness ;  and  the  absence  of  outward  reverence,  merely 
the  symptom  of  a  lack  of  inward  reverence,  the  loss 
of  spiritual  perception  of  that  Holy  Presence  into 
which  the  worshipper  ventures  to  come. 

There  is  no  necessary  relation  of  any  sort  or 


312  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

description  between  "simplicity"  and  spirituality. 
There  may  be,  however,  a  very  close  relation  be* 
tween  "simplicity"  and  selfishness,  "simplicity" 
and  irreverence,  "simplicity"  and  narrow  preju- 
dice, which  is  largely  bom  of  ignorance. 

As  the  historic  ritual  of  the  Catholic  Church 
developed,  it  embodied  certain  elemental  points, 
which  have  been  in  general  use  throughout  the 
Catholic  world,  in  the  Eastern  and  Western 
Church.  For  example,  the  use  of  Lights  on  the 
Altar  is  to  signify  that  our  Lord,  as  God  and  Man, 
is  the  light  of  the  world.  Such  lights  are  used  at 
celebrations  of  the  Holy  Communion,  as  symbols 
of  our  Lord's  Sacramental  Presence;  just  as  God 
always  used  some  form  of  light  to  indicate  His 
special  Presence ;  as  in  the  Shekinah,  the  Pillar  of 
Fire  by  night,  the  burning  bush,  the  lamps  before 
the  throne  in  St.  John's  vision,  and  the  glory  of  our 
Lord's  Transfiguration. 

Vestments  are  used  in  different  services,  to 
indicate  the  official  position  of  the  priest  who. is 
officiating :  to  serve  as  his  official  uniform  or  badge 
of  office  and  authority.  Special  vestments  are 
used  at  the  celebration  of  the  Divine  Sacrifice,  in 
honor  of  our  Lord's  Sacramental  Presence;  and  to 
indicate  that  the  Holy  Eucharist  is  a  sacrificial  act, 
by  which  our  Lord's  sacrificial  offering  is  pleaded 
before  the  Father.  -^ 

Wafer,  or  unleavened  Bread,  is  often  used,  be- 
cause it  is  probably  the  bread  our  Lord  used  when 
He  instituted  the  Christian  Passover ;  and  because 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  313 

it  is  less  liable  to  crumble  and  occasion  irreverence 
than  ordinary  bread. 

A  little  ivater  is  mixed  ivith  the  wine  at  the 
celebration  in  accordance  with  what  was  doubtless 
our  Lord's  example,  in  instituting  the  sacrament. 

Incense  (one  of  the  most  thoroughly  scriptural 
symbols  there  is)  is  a  symbol  of  the  prayers  of  the 
saints,  ascending  before  God,  in  union  with  our 
Lord's  sacrificial  offering;  and  a  symbol  of  spirit- 
nal  cleansins:,  necessary  before  one  can  venture  to 
approach  the  altar  of  God. 

Choral  ivorship  is  the  highest  and  most  perfect 
form  of  vocal  praise ;  and  serves  to  give  a  distinc- 
tive character  to  our  intercourse  with  God,  and  to 
lift  it  above  the  commonplace  colloquial  expression 
of  ordinary  intercourse  between  man  and  man. 

Beside  these  symbols  there  are  certain  sym- 
bolic acts  which  are  expressive  of  the  devotional 
attitude  of  the  mind,  at  different  parts  of  the  serv- 
ice. Worshippers  kneel  in  confession  of  sin,  and 
in  prayer,  to  express  repentance  and  humility,  and 
also  as  an  act  of  adoration  of  our  Lord  when  He 
is  present  in  the  Blessed  Sacrament.  They  stand 
in  acts  of  praise,  and  at  the  reading  of  the  Gospel, 
and  elsewhere,  as  an  attitude  of  respectful  atten- 
tion. They  bow  the  head,  as  in  the  creed  at  the 
mention  of  our  Lord's  Sacred  jSTame,  in  recognition 
of  His  deity.  They  use  the  sign  of  the  cross,  as 
at  the  end  of  the  creed  and  in  blessings,  to  remind 
themselves  that  all  possible  benediction  and  bless- 
ing comes  to  us  through  the  cross,  the  symbol  of 


314  CATFIOLIC  PRINCIPLFS 

our  salvation.  And  so  each  symbol  or  symbolic 
act  sets  forth  some  Christian  truth,  and  serves  to 
interpret  the  meaning  of  the  service  itself,  and  to 
give  it  order  and  dignity,  which  is  befitting  all  wor- 
ship ©f  Almighty  God.  Churchmen  make  the  Altar 
itself,  and  the  Sanctuary,  as  beautiful  as  possible, 
because  the  Altar  is  to  them  the  throne  of  their 
Lord's  sacramental  Presence,  and  because  the 
Sanctuary  is  the  Christian  Holy  of  Holies,  the 
place  of  meeting  between  man  and  God.  We  be- 
lieve God  accepts  such  gifts  as  expressions  of  love 
and  devotion  to  Him,  just  as  our  Lord  accepted  the 
costly  ointment,  which  might  have  been  sold  (as 
Judas  suggested)  and  given  to  the  poor. 

The  worship  of  the  Catholic  Church  has  always 
been  liturgical,  that  is,  conducted  with  the  use 
of  fixed  forms  of  prayer,  because  only  in  this  way 
is  it  possible  to  have  congregational  worship,  in 
which  all  the  worshippers  can  take  part ;  and  only 
in  this  way  is  it  possible  to  preserve  that  order  and 
dignity  of  expression  which  are  necessary  in  the 
public  worship  of  God,  to  keep  it  free  from  the 
eccentricities  of  individual  ministers  who  may  hap- 
pen to  ofiiciate. 


CHAPTER  XXI 

THE  CATHOLICITY  OF  THE  PKAYEK  BOOK 

now  the  question  arises,  does  the  American 
Church  hold  and  set  forth  the  Catholic  theory 
of  the  Church,  as  correctly  expressing  her  own 
position  and  teaching,  or  is  this  theory  one  which 
is  foreign  to  her  nature,  and  one  which  is  held 
merely  by  a  party  within  her  which  has  no  author- 
ity to  represent  her  ? 

Of  course  the  appeal  must  be  at  once,  to  that 
which  is  the  only  authorized  statement  of  the 
Church's  belief,  and  that  is,  the  Prayer  Book. 
This  does  not  voice  the  principles  of  any  one 
party,  or  any  one  age  ;  but  it  is  part  of  the  Church's 
historic  inheritance,  as  representing  her  corporate 
teaching  from  the  first.  The  acceptance  of  the 
Prayer  Book  is  made  obligatory,  by  competent 
authority,  on  all  loyal  Churchmen;  and  so  to  the 
Prayer  Book  we  must  turn,  if  we  would  get  an 
authorized  statement  of  the  Church's  position  and 
doctrine. 


316  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

We  affirm  as  a  starting  point,  that  the  Cath- 
olic theory  of  the  Church's  position  and  doctrine 
not  only  underlies  the  whole  structure  of  the* 
Prayer  Book,  but  that  it  is  distinctly  and  unmis- 
takably expressed  in  the  Prayer  Book  formularies, 
from  beginning  to  end ;  and  that  this  theory  must 
be  accepted  as  the  true  one,  by  anyone  who  calls 
himself  a  "Prayer  Book  Churchman." 

This  fact  would  appear  with  much  stronger 
emphasis,  if  we  were  to  make  a  careful  study  of 
the  history  of  the  Prayer  Book,  tracing  it  to  the 
liturgical  sources  from  which  its  various  parts  and 
offices  are  derived;  and  studying  the  historic  posi- 
tion and  belief  of  the  men  who  were  its  compilers. 
We  would  then  discover  that  not  only  is  the  Book 
itself  in  harmony  with  the  other  great  Catholic 
liturgies  of  the  ancient  Church,  but  that  it  was  not 
composed  by  Protestants;  and  the  essential  parts 
and  structure  of  it  were  determined  centuries  be- 
fore modern  Protestantism  was  ever  heard  of, 
either  as  a  theory  or  as  a  fact. 

This  would  take  much  time,  and  after  all  is 
quite  unnecessary;  for  the  Prayer  Book  as  it  is, 
speaks  for  itself.  We  can  turn  to  it  at  once,  sim- 
ply insisting  that  its  expressions  shall  be  taken  in 
their  ordinary,  gTammatical,  and  historic  sense. 

First  of  all,  we  come  to  the  name  of  the 
Church.  The  word  Protestant  occurs  on  the  title 
page  of  the  Prayer  Book;  but  every  liturgical 
scholar  knows  that  it  does  not  occur  in  the  English 
Prayer  Book,   from  which  ours   is   derived,   and 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  317 

that  as  used  in  our  Prayer  Book  it  is  equivalent  to 
"Reformed,"  or  non-Papal,  and  does  not  stand  for 
a  denial  of  the  Catholic  position.'  The  word  Prot- 
estant is  rapidly  dropping  out  of  current  colloquial 
use  among  Churchmen,  and  is  being  slowly 
dropped  from  official  titles  and  legal  documents 
as  opportunity  offers  for  disposing  of  it ;  and  the 
whole  Church  is  discarding  it  as  a  misnomer,  an 
unfortunate  mistake,  which  misrepresents  both  the 
contents  and  teaching  of  the  Prayer  Book  itself, 
and  the  historic  position  of  the  Church  in  the 
United  States.  And  the  same  title  page  declares 
that  the  book  is  "The  Book  of  Common  Prayer 
...  of  The  Church." 

If  we  turn  to  the  Praver  Book,  we  find  that  in 
the  Apostles'  Creed  (the  creed  of  the  choir-offices), 
the  Church  is  called  "the  Holy  Catholic  Church," 
and  in  the  Xicene  Creed  (the  Eucharistic  Creed), 
the  Church  is  called  One,  Catholic,  and  Apostolic 
Church.    And  so  we  get  the  full  title — 

ONE,    HOLY^    CATHOLIC    AND   APOSTOLIC    CHURCH 

And  so  in  her  official  statement  of  belief,  the 
Church  names  herself  the  Catholic  Church. 


*  This  is  the  historical  sense  in  which  the  word  was  used 
by  Bp.  Cosin  when  he  said  concerning  the  English  Church, 
"We  that  are  Protestant  and  reformed  according  to  the  an- 
cient Catholic  Church."  (History  of  Transubstantiation,  I., 
7.)  So  Bp.  Sanderson  speaks  of  "the  right  English  Prot- 
estant, as  he  standeth  in  the  middle  between,  and  distin- 
guished from,  the  Papists  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  some- 
times styled  Puritan  on  the  other."  (Preface  to  sermons, 
1657,  §  xxi.) 


318  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

Never  at  any  time  in  her  history,  has  she  form- 
ally repudiated  the  name ;  never  has  she  surren- 
dered it  to  the  exclusive  use  of  Roman  Catholics; 
and  never  has  the  term  Catholic  dropped  out  of  use 
among  Churchmen. 

In  the  prayer  of  the  Visitation  Office,  Church- 
men pray  that  they  "may  be  gathered  unto  [their] 
fathers,  having  the  testimony  of  a  good  con- 
science, in  the  Communion  of  the  Catholic 
Church."  And  certainly,  they  could  not  have  the 
testimony  of  a  good  conscience,  if  they  prayed  that 
they  might  die  in  the  Communion  of  the  Cath- 
olic Church,  while  they  believed  they  belonged  to  a 
merely  Protestant  Church. 

In  the  prayer  for  the  Unity  of  God's  People, 
the  Church  declares,  "There  is  but  one  Body,  and 
one  Spirit,  .  .  .  one  Faith,  one  Baptism."  The 
Church  is  called  in  the  prayer  for  All  Saints'  Day, 
"One  Communion  and  fellowship  in  the  mystical 
Body  of  Christ  our  Lord" ;  and  in  the  Litany  to 
divide  this  body  on  the  Protestant  principle  is 
called  the  sin  of  schism.  In  the  Te  Deum  the 
Church  is  spoken  of  as  the  "Holy  Church 
throughout  all  the  world,"  that  is,  it  has  sanctity 
and  catholicity.  In  the  prayer  to  be  used  at  the 
meetings  of  Conventions,  the  Church  assumes  the 
principle  of  continuity,  asserting  that  God  has 
promised  through  Jesus  Christ  to  be  with  His 
Church  TO  the  end  of  the  world.  The  Apos- 
tolicity  of  the  Church  is  asserted  in  the  prayer  at 
the  close  of  the  office  for  Institution,  which  says, 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  319 

God  has  built  His  Church  upon  the  foundation  of 
the  Apostles  and  Prophets.  And  so  the  four  Cath- 
olic attributes  of  the  Church,  Unity,  Sanctity, 
Catholicity,  and  Apostolicity,  are  recognized  in 
both  the  Church's  creeds  and  prayers. 

Again,  in  the  Convention  prayer  the  Church 
asserts  that  the  "Holy  Spirit  did  preside  in  the 
council  of  the  blessed  Apostles,"  and  that  God  is 
to  be,  "through  Jesus  Christ,  with  the  Church  to 
the  end  of  the  world,"  and  this  fact  is  the  basis  of 
the  Church's  claim  that  she  is  guided  by  the  Holy 
Spirit  in  the  universal  consent  by  which  she  sets 
forth  the  Catholic  Faith.  Here  is  made  clearly 
enough,  the  distinction  between  the  Protestant  idea 
of  individual  guidance  in  interpreting  the  Scrip- 
tures, and  the  Catholic  principle  of  corporate  guid- 
ance in  defining  the  Faith. 

In  the  Twentieth  Article  of  Eeligion  the 
Church's  historic  relation  to  the  Bible  is  stated, 
when  the  Church  is  said  to  be  the  "witness  and 
keeper  of  Holy  Writ."  The  Preface  asserts  that  to 
the  Church  of  England  the  Episcopal  Church  in 
the  United  States  "is  indebted  under  God  for  her 
first  foundation,"  and  that  "This  Church  is  far 
from  intending  to  depart  from  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land in  any  essential  point  of  doctrine,  discipline, 
or  worship."  Here  the  historic  continuity  of  the 
Church,  and  its  unity  with  the  Anglo-Catholic 
Church,  are  most  distinctly  asserted,  and  its  loyalty 
to  Catholic  traditions  is  pledged. 

It  must  be  obvious  then  that  the  Church  as 


320  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

she  defines  herself  is  Catholic  and  not  Protestant. 
Take  the  question  of  the  Church's  ministry.  The 
Protestant  doctrine  is  that  the  inward  call  makes 
a  man  a  minister  of  God,  and  that  there  is  only  one 
order  of  ministers.  The  Catholic  doctrine  is  that 
there  are  three  orders,  which  receive  their  commis- 
sion through  ordination,  at  the  hands  of  a  Bishop. 
The  Preface  to  the  Ordinal  in  the  Prayer  Book 
says  that  "from  the  Apostles'  time,  there  have  been 
these  Orders  of  ministers  in  Christ's  Church,  Bish- 
ops, Priests,  and  Deacons And  to  the  in- 
tent that  these  orders  may  be  continued,  .... 
no  man  shall  be  accounted  or  taken  to  be  a  lawful 
Bishop,  Priest,  or  Deacon,  in  this  Church,  .... 
except  he  hath  had  Episcopal  Consecration  or  Ordi- 
nation." Here  certainly  the  continuity  of  a  min- 
istry of  three  orders  is  most  distinctly  asserted,  as 
is  the  necessity  of  Episcopal  ordination  or  consecra- 
tion to  transmit  the  ministerial  commission  which 
makes  a  man  a  lawful  Bishop,  Priest,  or  Deacon. 
This  doctrine  is  emphasized  in  the  prayer  in  the 
Institution  Office,  which  says  that  Jesus  "has 
promised  to  be  with  the  ministers  of  Apostolic  Suc- 
cession, to  the  end  of  the  world."  The  divine 
origin  and  appointment  of  the  ministry  is  brought 
out  in  the  prayer  for  those  who  are  to  be  admitted 
into  Holy  Orders,  which  says  that  "Almighty  God 
of  His  Divine  Providence  hath  appointed  divers 
orders  in  His  Church." 

Protestantism   repudiates    any   notion    of   the 
minister  being  a  priest,  and  stigmatizes  the  doo- 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  321 

trine  as  "sacerdotalism."  But  members  of  the 
second  order  of  the  ministry  are  constantly  called 
Priests  in  the  Prayer  Book.  In  the  Office  for  or- 
daining Priests,  the  candidates  are  said  to  be 
"called  to  the  office  of  priesthood,"  and  when  they 
are  ordained,  the  Bishop  says:  "Receive  the 
Holy  Ghost  for  the  Office  and  Work  of  a  Priest 
in  the  Church  of  God,  now  committed  unto  thee, 
by  the  imposition  of  our  hands.  Whose  sins  thou 
dost  forgive,  they  are  forgiven;  and  whose  sins 
thou  dost  retain,  they  are  retained :  and  be  thou  a 
faithful  dispenser  of  the  Word  of  God,  and  of  His 
Holy  Sacraments,  in  the  ISTame  of  the  Father,  and 
of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost." 

]^otice  carefully,  that  in  these  words  Ordina- 
tion is  sacramental,  because  through  it  men  receive 
the  Holy  Ghost ;  second,  it  makes  priests  of  men 
who  are  ordained  by  the  imposition  of  the  Bishop's 
hands ;  and  third,  it  conveys  authority  to  remit  sins 
and  to  administer  sacraments. 

Protestants  constantly  deny  that  ordination 
conveys  grace  that  makes  priests,  or  that  ministers 
have  any  authority  of  any  sort  to  remit  sins.  One 
can  hardly  imagine  a  formula  of  a  few  words,  in 
which  the  Protestant  position  could  be  more  em- 
phatically denied,  that  in  this  formula  of  ordina- 
tion. 

It  is  Catholic  from  beginning  to  end. 

In  the  commission  to  administer  sacraments, 
is  included  the  commission  to  offer  the  Eucharistic 
sacrifice,  as  we  shall  see  when  we  come  to  consider 


322  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

the  Holy  Eucharist.  Moreover,  every  priest  or- 
dained swears  that  he  "will  reverently  obey  his 
Bishop,  and  other  chief  Ministers  who,  according 
to  the  canons  of  the  Church,  may  have  the  charge 
and  government  over  him."  And  thus  the  Cath- 
olic principle  of  subordination  and  obedience  is 
distinctly  set  forth,  as  opposed  to  Protestant  indi- 
vidualism. 

We  come  now  to  the  sacramental  teaching  of 
the  Prayer  Book.  The  Protestant  teaching  is 
that  Sacraments  are  symbols  only,  and  not  means 
by  which  grace  is  actually  conveyed.  The  Cat- 
echism defines  a  sacrament  as  "an  outward  and 
visible  sign  of  an  inward  and  spiritual  grace,  given 
unto  us ;  ordained  by  Christ  Himself,  as  a  memis 
whereby  we  receive  the  same,  and  a  pledge  to  as- 
sure us  thereof." 

According  to  Protestant  doctrine,  Baptism  is 
a  symbol  of  regeneration,  which  is  synonymous 
with  conversion,  which  latter  occurs  at  some  other 
time  than  when  the  Baptism  itself  is  administered. 
Conversion  being  a  conscious  emotional  exj)erience, 
an  act  of  faith,  children,  they  hold,  cannot  be  regen- 
erated in  Baptism. 

The  Catholic  doctrine  is  that  Baptism,  both  in 
the  case  of  children  and  of  adults,  is  the  means  by 
which  men  are  born  again  or  become  regenerate, 
are  made  members  of  Christ  and  children  of  God. 
What  is  the  Prayer  Book  teaching?  Take  Bap- 
tism. Article  XXVII.  says  that  "Baptism  is  not 
only  a  sign  of  profession,  and  mark  of  difference, 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  323 

whereby  Christian  men  are  discerned  from  others 
that  be  not  christened,  but  it  is  also  a  sign  of  Re- 
generation or  New  Birth,  whereby  as  by  an  instru- 
ment, they  that  receive  Baptism  rightly  are  grafted 
into  the  Church;  the  promises  of  the  forgiveness 
of  sin,  and  of  our  adoption  to  be  the  Sons  of  God, 
by  the  Holy  Ghost,  are  visibly  signed  and  sealed." 

In  the  Catechism  the  baptismal  gift  is  defined 
as  a  death  unto  sin,  and  a  new  birth  unto  righteous- 
ness; a  sacrament  wherein  the  child  is  made  a 
member  of  Christ,  the  child  of  God,  and  an  inher- 
itor of  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven. 

Before  the  child  is  baptized,  the  priest  is  di- 
rected to  pray  that  "he  coming  to  Holy  Baptism, 
Tnay  receive  remission  of  sin,  by  spiritual  regen- 
eration"; "that  he  may  be  bom  again,  and  made 
an  heir  of  everlasting  salvation."  After  the  child 
has  been  baptized,  the  priest  declares  to  the  wit- 
nesses, "tJhis  child  IS  regenerate  and  grafted  into 
the  Body  of  Christ's  Church."  Then  in  his  prayer 
he  thanks  God  "that  it  hath  pleased  Him  to  regen- 
erate this  infant  with  His  Holy  Spirit,  to  receive 
him  for  His  own  child  by  adoption,  and  to  incor- 
porate him  into  His  Holy  Church."  Could  any 
combination  of  words  assert  more  strongly  than 
these,  the  Catholic  doctrine  of  Baptismal  Regen- 
eration, as  opposed  to  the  Protestant  doctrine  of 
empty  symbolism  ? 

Take  next  the  Blessed  Sacrament  of  the  Holy 
Eucharist.  The  Protestant  doctrine,  is,  that  it  is 
a  symbolic  rite  setting  forth  to  the  imagination  the 


324  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

fact  of  Christ's  death,  much  as  a  fine  picture  of  the 
Crucifixion  would ;  that  it  does  not  convey  the 
Body  and  Blood  of  Christ,  but  is  a  mere  symbol 
of  these  things ;  that  the  memorial  is  made  before 
men,  not  before  God. 

The  Catholic  doctrine  is,  that  in  the  Blessed 
Sacrament  of  the  Altar,  the  Lord  is  sacramentally 
present;  and  under  the  form  of  bread  and  wine, 
His  Body  and  Blood  are  given,  taken,  and  re- 
ceived, and  His  Sacrifice,  once  offered  on  the 
Cross,  is  presented  before  the  Father,  as  Christ 
presents  it  in  Heaven. 

What  is  the  Prayer  Book  doctrine  ? 

The  XXVIIIth  Article  says  that  "The  Sup- 
per of  the  Lord  is  not  only  a  sign  ....  but  rather 
is  it  a  sacrament  of  our  Redemption  by  Christ's 
death;  insomuch  that  to  such  as  rightly,  worthily, 
and  with  faith  receive  the  same,  the  Bread  which 
we  break,  is  a  partak'mg  of  the  Body  of  Christ;  and 
likewise  the  Cup  of  Blessing  is  a  partaking  of  the 
Blood  of  Christ/' 

In  the  Consecration  prayer,  the  priest  prays 
that  the  Holy  Spirit  may  so  bless  and  sanctify 
....  the  Bread  and  Wine,  "that  we  receiving 
them  ....  may  be  partakers  of  His  most  Blessed 
Body  and  Blood" ;  and  again  that  "we  and  all 
others  who  shall  be  partakers  of  this  Holy  Com- 
munion, may  worthily  receive  the  most  precious 
Body  and  Blood  of  Thy  Son  Jesus  Christ."  When 
the  Bread  is  delivered  to  the  communicant,  the 
priest  says:  "The  Body  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  325 

which  was  given  for  thee,  preserve  thy  body  and 
soul  unto  everlasting  life."  After  the  Sacrament 
has  been  administered  the  priest  thanks  God  '"that 
He  doth  vouchsafe  to  feed  us  who  have  duly  re- 
ceived these  Holy  Mysteries,  with  the  spiritual 
food  of  the  most  precious  Body  and  Blood  of  His 
Son." 

The  Catechism  defines  the  inward  part  of  the 
Blessed  Sacrament,  as  "The  Body  and  Blood  of 
Christ,  which  are  spiritually  iahen  and  received 
by  the  faithful  in  the  Lord's  Supper." 

!N^ow  we  ask  again,  if  you  wanted  to  assert 
the  Catholic  doctrine  of  the  real  objective  Pres- 
ence of  our  Lord's  Body  and  Blood,  under  the 
forms  of  Bread  and  Wine,  in  the  Blessed  Sacra- 
ment, in  opposition  to  the  Protestant  doctrine  of 
the  real  absence  of  these  things,  what  language 
could  you  use  that  would  be  more  decisive,-  and 
positive,  than  that  of  the  Prayer  Book  ? 

Again,  the  Holy  Eucharist  is  a  sacrificial  offer- 
ing made  before  God.  The  prayer  of  Consecration 
reads :  "Wherefore,  O  Lord  and  Heavenly  Father, 
according  to  the  institution  of  Thy  dearly  beloved 
Son,  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  we  Thy  humble 
servants  do  celebrate  and  make  here  before  Thy 
Divine  Majesty,  with  these  Thy  Holy  gifts  which 
we  now  offer  unto  Thee,  the  memorial  Thy  Son 
hath  commanded  us  to  make;  having  in  remem- 
brance His  blessed  Passion  and  precious  death 
.  .  .  And  although  we  are  unworthy  through 
our  manifold  sins  to  offer  unto  Thee  any  sacrifice. 


326  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

yet  we  beseech  Thee  to  accept  this  our  boiinden 
duty  and  service." 

Here  the  sacrificial  nature  of  the  Blessed  Sac- 
rament is  distinctly  set  forth ;  and  such  sacrificial 
doctrine  is  emphasized  when  the  celebrant  is  called 
a  "priest,"  and  the  thing  on  which  the  sacrament 
is  celebrated  is  called  an  "altar,"  as  it  is  in  the 
Office  of  Institution.  This  surely  is  not  Protestant 
doctrine. 

Take  next  Confirmation.  The  Prayer  Book 
Ofiice  sets  it  forth  as  a  sacrament  in  the  sense  of 
being  the  outward  sign  of  a  spiritual  gift.  The 
selection  of  Scripture  read  in  the  service,  sets 
forth  the  fact  that  the  Holy  Ghost  was  given  by 
the  laying  on  of  the  Apostles'  hands.  The  Bishop 
prays  for  the  gifts  of  the  Holy  Ghost  for  those  who 
are  about  to  be  confirmed ;  and  after  they  are  con- 
firmed, he  jDrays  again  for  them  "upon  whom  after 
the  example  of  Thy  Holy  Apostles,"  he  has  now 
"laid  his  hands  to  certify  them  by  this  sign,  of 
God's  favor  and  gracious  goodness  to  them."  In 
the  Office  for  the  Consecration  of  Churches,  the 
Bishop  prays  that  those  who  are  confirmed  by  the 
Bishop  may  receive  a  measure  of  God's  Holy 
Spirit. 

Protestantism  not  only  denies  that  the  Holy 
Ghost  is  given  in  Confirmation,  but  has  rejDudiated 
the  form  of  Confirmation  altogether.  It  has  no 
place  in  their  system. 

Take,  next,  the  question  of  Absolution. 

When  the  Bishop  ordains  a  priest,  as  we  have 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  327 

already  found,  he  says :  "Receive  the  Holy  Ghost 
for  the  office  and  work  of  a  priest  in  the  Church  of 
God.  .  .  .  Whose  sins  thou  dost  forgive,  they 
are  forgiven;  and  whose  sins  thou  dost  retain, 
they  are  retained."  Here  certainly  is  a  commis- 
sion to  forgive  sins  in  some  way.  When  the 
priest  pronounces  absolution  publicly  in  Church, 
he  says :  "Almighty  God,  the  Father  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  .  .  .  hath  given  power  and  com- 
mandment to  His  Ministers,  to  declare  and  pro- 
nounce to  His  people  being  penitent,  the  Absolu- 
tion and  remission  of  their  sins."  This  certainly 
is  a  direct  and  clear  statement.  In  the  exhorta- 
tion after  the  Eucharistic  office,  the  priest  is 
directed  to  say:  "Because  it  is  requisite  that  no 
man  should  come  to  the  Holy  Communion  but  with 
a  full  trust  in  God's  mercy,  and  with  a  quiet  con- 
science; therefore,  if  there  be  any  of  you  who  by 
this  means  cannot  quiet  his  own  conscience  herein, 
but  requireth  further  comfort  and  counsel,  let  him 
come  to  me,  or  to  some  other  minister  of  God's 
Word,  and  open  his  grief;  that  he  may  receive 
such  godly  counsel  and  advice,  as  may  tend  to  the 
quieting  of  his  conscience,  and  the  removing  of 
all  scruple  and  doubtfulness." 

In  the  Office  for  the  visitation  of  prisoners,  the 
priest  is  directed  to  "examine  the  penitent  whether 
he  repent  him  truly  of  his  sins,  exhorting  him  to  a 
particular  confession  of  the  sin  for  which  he  is  con- 
demned, and  upon  confession  he  shall  instruct  him 
what  satisfaction  ought  to  be  made  to  those  whom 


328  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

he  has  offended.  .  .  .  And  after  his  confession, 
the  priest  shall  declare  to  him  the  pardoning  mercy 
of  God,  in  the  form  which  is  used  in  the  Com- 
munion service,"  that  is,  in  the  form  of  absolu- 
tion there  given.  Now  while  this  last  rubric  refers 
to  men  who  have  committed  great  sins  and  are 
under  condemnation  of  the  law,  still,  all  men  in 
the  sight  of  God  are  sinners.  Confession  and  ab- 
solution are  not  penalties,  but  privileges;  and  if 
the  Prayer  Book  sanctions  a  privilege  to  one  sin- 
ner, it  cannot  deny  that  same  special  means  of 
grace  to  another,  who  is  penitent.  And  so  the 
Prayer  Book  distinctly  recognizes  the  Catholic  doc- 
trine of  Confession'  and  Absolution,  without  mak- 
ing confession  obligatory.  By  no  stretch  of  imag- 
ination can  this  doctrine  be  called  Protestant ;  on 
the  contrary,  it  is  perhaps  the  one  doctrine  of  the 
Church  which  has,  more  than  any  other,  been 
feared,  antagonized,  and  ridiculed,  by  Protestants. 
So  far  as  the  office  of  Holy  Matrimony  is  con- 
cerned, it  most  distinctly  adheres  to  the  Catholic 
doctrine  of  the  indissolubility  of  marriage.  The 
man  takes  the  woman  to  be  his  wedded  wife  "so 

LONG  AS    THEY   BOTH    SHALL   LIVe"  ;    "tILL   DEATH 

US  DO  PART."  And  the  priest  declares:  "those 
WHOM  God  hath  joined  together,  let  no  man 
PUT  asunder."  Christian  Marriage,  according  to 
the  Prayer  Book,  is  sacramental;  for  it  "signifies 


-  See  Appendix  B. 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  329 

unto  us  the  mystical  union  that  is  betwixt  Christ 
and  His  Church,"  and  is  "a  holy  estate." 

The  Prayer  Book  recognizes  the  Catholic  doc- 
trine of  the  Intermediate  State,  and  of  the  min- 
istry of  Angels ;  asserting  that  God  has  "ordained 
and  constituted  the  services  of  Angels  and  men  in 
a  wonderful  order,"  and  praying  that  "as  God's 
holy  Angels  always  do  Him  service  in  Heaven,  so 
by  His  appointment  they  may  succor  and  defend 
us  on  earth." 

Besides  its  statements  of  Catholic  doctrine,  the 
Prayer  Book  recognizes  many  Catholic  customs 
and  traditions.  For  example:  "The  Church  re- 
quires such  a  measure  of  abstinence  as  is  more 
especially  suited  to  extraordinary  acts  and  exer- 
cises of  devotion,"  at  certain  seasons,  and  on  cer- 
tain days  of  the  Christian  year;  and  the  Prayer 
Book  prays  that  God  "may  give  us  grace  to  use 
such  abstinence."  Thus  the  duty  of  fasting  and 
abstinence  is  recognized.  The  power  of  benedic- 
tion of  things  set  apart  for  a  holy  purpose,  is 
recognized  in  the  office  for  the  consecration  of 
churches,  and  in  the  benediction  of  the  water  in 
the  font  before  a  Baptism,  when  the  priest  asks 
God  to  "sanctify  this  water  to  the  mystical  wash- 
ing away  of  sin."  The  use  of  the  sign  of  the 
Cross  is  sanctioned  in  the  baptismal  service;  and 
the  rubric  declares  that  the  Church  "knoweth  no 
worthy  cause  of  scruple  concerning  the  same." 

The  Church  follows  the  Catholic  custom  of 
praying  for  the  dead,  beseeching  God  "that  we. 


330  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

with  all  those  who  are  departed  in  the  true  Faith 
of  His  Holy  Name,  may  have  our  perfect  consum- 
mation and  bliss,  both  in  body  and  soul,  in  His 
eternal  and  everlasting  Glory"  (Burial  Office).  In 
the  Eucharistic  Consecration  Prayer,  the  Church 
prays  that  we  and  all  God's  whole  Church  (which 
expression  must  include  the  souls  in  the  Church 
Expectant  in  Paradise)  "may  obtain  remission  of 
our  sins  and  all  other  benefits  of  Christ's  passion." 

Again  Article  XXXIV.  rebukes  those  who 
through  their  private  judgment,  willingly  and  pur- 
posely do  openly  break  the  traditions  and  cere- 
monies of  the  Church,  that  are  ordained  and  ap- 
proved by  common  authority. 

Surely  enough  has  been  said  to  prove  beyond 
a  doubt,  that  the  Prayer  Book  embodies  and  sets 
forth  the  Catholic  Faith,  as  the  Faith  of  the  Amer; 
lean  Church.  It  was  exactly  for  this  reason  that 
the  Reformed  Episcopalians  left  the  Church;  be- 
cause as  Protestants,  they  could  not  conscien- 
tiously use  Catholic  formularies,  which  stated 
Catholic  Truth.  They  were  quite  consistent  in 
their  action. 

If  then  the  Catholic  theory  of  the  nature  and 
organization  of  the  Church  is  thus  incorporated  in 
the  Prayer  Book,  it  must  be  the  teaching  of  the 
Church,  and  not  merely  of  any  one  party  or  group 
of  men  in  the  Church. 

It  is  sometimes  said  that  certain  expressions 
in  the  Thirt3^-nine  Articles  seem  to  contradict  the 
Catholic  teaching  of  the  Prayer  Book ;  but  if  such 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  331 

expressions  were  taken  in  their  original  and  his- 
toric sense,  such  appearance  of  contradiction  at 
once  disappears.  For  example,  Article  XXXI.  is 
sometimes  quoted  as  condemning  the  Catholic  doc- 
trine of  the  Eucharistic  sacrifice;  but  it  must  be 
noted  that  the  error  condemned  is  not  the  doctrine 
of  Eucharistic  Sacrifice,  but  the  doctrine  of  "sac- 
rifices (note  the  plural)  of  masses."  In  other 
words,  the  popular  notion  that  while  the  sacrifice 
on  Calvary  satisfied  for  original  sin,  the  sacrifice 
of  each  mass  was  necessary  as  an  oblation  for 
actual  daily  sins;  and  so  the  repeated  sacrifice  of 
the  Altar  was  necessary,  to  supplement  the  insuf- 
ficiency of  the  sacrifice  of  the  Cross. 

This  doctrine  implied  that  each  Eucharistic 
oblation  was  therefore  in  a  sense  a  repetition  of 
the  original  sacrifice,  or  at  least  a  necessary  addi- 
tion to  it;  and  so  of  course  was  vigorously  con- 
demned by  the  thirty-first  Article,  as  a  "blasphe- 
mous fable." 

The  Catholic  doctrine  of  the  Eucharistic  Sac- 
rifice is,  that  our  Lord  made  upon  the  cross,  by 
His  one  oblation  of  Himself  once  offered,  a  full, 
perfect,  and  sufficient  sacrifice,  oblation,  and  satis- 
faction, for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world;  and  that 
in  the  Holy  Eucharist  this  sacrifice  is  not  re- 
peated; but  is  offered  to  the  Father,  in  union 
with  our  Lord's  perpetual  sacrificial  pleading  in 
Heaven,  as  a  Priest  who  ever  liveth  to  make  inter- 
cession for  us. 

Again,  it  is  sometimes  said  that  the  Church 


332  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

tolerates  mucli  difference  of  opinion  concerning 
the  nature  of  the  Church,  its  ministry,  and  its 
sacramental  system;  and  this  no  doubt  is  true; 
but  the  question  after  all  is  not  what  the  Church 
tolerates,  or  what  this  man  or  that  man,  or  this 
school  of  thought  or  that  school  of  thought  teaches, 
hut  what  the  Church  herself  teaches  in  her  own 
authorized  standai'd  of  doctrine  and  practice, 
namely,  the  Prayer  Booh ;  and  we  have  shown  that 
the  teaching  of  the  Prayer  Book  is  clear  and  dis- 
tinct, and  cannot  possibly  be  adapted  to  fit  the 
Protestant  theory,  that  is,  not  if  words  are  to  be 
taken  in  their  grammatical  and  historic  sense,  and 
language  is  held  to  be  a  medium  for  expressing 
accurate  thought, 


CHAPTER  XXII 


"eomanism"  in  the  church 


CIIERE  seems  to  be  no  limit  to  the  number  of 
charges  which  are  brought  against  the  Church, 
by  those  who  do  not  understand  her  system  and 
doctrine.  Most  of  these  answer  themselves,  to 
any  one  who  takes  the  slightest  pains  to  appreciate 
the  Church,  from  her  own  standpoint.  There  is, 
however,  one  charge  which  is  frequently  made 
against  the  Church,  and  which,  as  time  goes  on, 
will  be  reiterated,  and  that  is,  that  the  Church,  as 
the  popular  expression  has  it,  is  "Romish" ;  that 
it  imitates  Roman  doctrine  and  practices,  and  even 
that  some  of  its  members  are  "Jesuits  in  disguise," 
Avhose  purpose  is  to  lead  the  whole  Church  gradu- 
ally over  to  Rome.  Naturally,  from  a  Protestant 
standpoint,  such  a  charge,  if  it  can  be  substan- 
tiated, would  be  very  damaging  to  the  influence  of 
the  American  Episcopal  Church ;  and  it  is  perhaps 
worth  while  to  consider  the  charge  in  detail,  and  to 


334  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

see  just  how  much  truth  or  falsehood  there  is  be- 
hind it. 

It  is  not  at  all  unnatural  that  a  Protestant 
should  make  this  charge  against  the  Church,  be- 
cause he  is  familiar  with  only  two  types  of  Chris- 
tianity; namely,  the  Protestant  type  and  the 
Roman  Catholic  type ;  and  of  course,  logically,  to 
him,  that  which  is  obviously  not  Protestant,  must 
necessarily  be  "Romish."  Consequently,  if  there 
is  anything  in  the  American  Church  with  which  he 
is  unfamiliar,  he  naturally  concludes  that  it  must 
be  an  importation  from  the  Roman  system.  Then, 
too,  during  the  Church  revival  of  the  past  sixty 
years,  many  neglected  Prayer  Book  doctrines  have 
been  emphasized,  and  certain  ancient  points  of 
ritual,  as  symbolizing  these  doctrines,  have  been 
restored  to  their  ancient  place  in  the  worship  of 
the  Church,  from  which  they  were  displaced  by 
the  Puritan  innovators.  To  an  outsider  or  a 
poorly  instructed  Churchman,  who  knows  little  of 
the  historic  doctrine  or  ritual  of  the  American 
Church,  of  course  anj^  such  restoration  seems  like 
an  innovation,  or  perhajjs  like  an  imitation  of  the 
Church  of  Rome,  and  to  indicate  a  dangerous  ten- 
dency; and  so  it  comes  about,  that  occasionally 
devout  men  are  troubled  by  what  is  doubtless  a 
very  sincere  and  worthy  anxiety  concerning  cer- 
tain "tendencies"  which  to  them  appear  to  con- 
stitute a  movement  Romeward.  It  may  perhaps 
be  wise  for  us  to  stop  for  a  moment,  and  see  if 
such  fears  are  justifiable. 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  335 

We  have  spoken  of  an  anxiety  which  is  sincere, 
however  mistaken  it  may  be ;  and  with  this  alone 
we  are  to  deal;  ignoring  entirely  the  charge  of 
Romanism  which  is  constantly  made  maliciously, 
and  for  the  purpose  of  hurting  the  Church,  on  the 
part  of  her  enemies ;  who  know  that  an  appeal  to 
popular  prejudice  and  Protestant  hatred  of  Rome 
is  the  quickest  way  to  bring  any  cause  or  organiza- 
tion into  popular  disrepute,  and  so  stop  its  prog- 
ress. Failing  entirely  to  meet  and  disprove  the 
claims  of  the  Church  on  Scriptural  and  historic 
grounds,  unable  otherwise  to  hinder  her  marvellous 
growth,  a  certain  class  of  fanatics  will  resort  to 
anything  to  gain  their  ends ;  and  often  from  such 
sources  comes  the  cry  of  "Romanism"  in  the 
Church.  With  such  persons  or  their  methods  we 
are  not  in  the  least  concerned  in  a  work  of  this 
kind.  Ultimately  they  defeat  their  own  purposes. 
What  we  ought  to  do  is  to  point  out  the  fact,  that 
•  the  suspicion  of  honest  and  sincere  people  concern- 
ing the  "Romish  tendency"  is  a  mistaken  one,  and 
that  such  fears  are  groundless. 

Let  us  take  the  charge  itself  in  detail. 

The  charge  is  this:  That  the  Church's  doc- 
trine, or  ritual,  or  characteristic  tendency,  is 
Romish. 

We  can  imagine  just  six  possible  meanings  to 
the  expression  Romish.  Let  us  take  them  in  turn : 
First,  it  may  mean  that  the  principle  of  using  sym- 
bolic ritual  in  Christian  worship,  is  a  Roman 
error.     This  statement  is  disproved  by  the  fact 


336  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

that  (as  we  have  found)  Almighty  God  Himself 
instituted  the  principle  of  ritual  in  the  old  cove- 
nant, and  reveals  all  we  know  of  heavenly  wor- 
ship under  the  symbolism  of  ritual  forms,  and 
that  the  use  of  ritual  of  some  sort  is  an  inherent 
necessity  of  human  nature  when  it  attempts  to 
express  itself,  its  thoughts,  emotions,  and  senti- 
ments; and  that  every  Protestant  sect  employs 
ritual  of  some  kind,  and  cannot  possibly  avoid  it, 
if  it  has  public  worship  at  all. 

Secondly,  it  may  be  said  that  the  use  of  ritual 
is  peculiar  to  the  Roman  Church.  We  reply,  it 
certainly  is  not;  for  the  most  ritualistic  Church 
in  the  world  is  the  Greek  Church,  which  repudi- 
ates Roman  error,  and  always  has.  The  Protest- 
ant sect  of  the  Irvingites  has  a  very  ritualistic 
service.  The  continental  Lutherans  employ  a 
more  or  less  elaborate  ritual.  Many  secular  soci- 
eties, like  the  Free  Masons  and  others,  employ  an 
elaborate  ritual,  and  its  use  is  peculiar  to  no  one 
body,  either  religious  or  secular. 

Perhaps  the.  objector  may  mean  that  ritual 
teaches  Roman  Catholic  error.  Well,  what,  for 
example  ?  Do  lights  on  the  altar,  which  teach  that 
our  Lord  is  the  Light  of  the  world ;  the  Cross,  and 
the  sign  of  the  Cross,  that  the  Lord  died  on  the 
cross  for  our  salvation ;  Incense,  which  represents 
our  Lord's  sacrificial  intercession  for  us;  Vest- 
ments, which  define  the  ofiicial  character  and  serv- 
ice of  the  minister  who  is  officiating;  Kneeling 
and  Bowing,  which  are  acts  of  the  body  express- 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  337 

ing  the  worship  of  the  heart,  the  relation  of  a 
creature  to  his  Creator ;  or  Choral  Worship,  which 
is  the  highest  form  of  vocal  praise  ?  Surely  these 
things  symbolize  and  teach  Christian  truth,  and 
nothing  else.  The  objection  that  ritual  teaches 
Roman  error  lacks  point,  until  the  objector  speci- 
fies to  what  point  of  ritual  he  refers;  and  what 
error  it  teaches. 

It  may  be  said  that  the  Church's  ritual  or  doc- 
trines are  copied  from  Rome.  As  to  ritual,  the 
Church  inherits  her  ritual  from  her  own  past,  and 
all  the  distinctive  elements  of  Church  ritual  were 
legally  retained  in  the  reformed  Church,  not  as 
adoptions  from  another  system,  but  simply  as  part 
of  the  great  Catholic  inheritance  of  the  Church 
of  England,  from  Catholic  antiquity. 

As  to  doctrine,  the  Church's  belief  is  embodied 
in  her  Prayer  Book,  which  is  also  part  of  her 
Catholic  inheritance,  and  which  is  not  copied  from 
any  foreign  system.  Her  standard  of  doctrine  is 
fixed  and  unalterable ;  for  it  is  the  Nicene  Creed, 
the  Holy  Scriptures  as  interpreted  by  the  Apos- 
tolic Fathers,  and  such  definitions  of  truth  as  have 
been  voiced  by  the  whole  Church  from  the  first. 
Much  of  this  doctrine  may  be  unfamiliar  to  the 
average  Protestant,  but  for  that  reason,  to  call  it 
Romish  error  is  nonsense  and  contrary  to  fact. 

It  may  be  said  that  our  ritual  or  doctrine  in 
many  points  resembles  that  of  Rome.  Certainly 
it  does.  But  why  ?  Simply  because  we  both  in- 
herit from  the  same  Catholic  antiquity,  and  we 


338  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

both  hold  the  same  Christian  truths,  in  many  re- 
spects. .  Because  Rome  teaches  the  doctrines  of 
the  Holy  Trinity,  the  Incarnation,  the  Atonement, 
and  the  Resurrection,  the  necessity  of  penitence 
and  faith,  or  uses  the  Lord's  Prayer,  and  hymn 
■books,  and  because  she  worships  in  churches,  must 
we  get  rid  of  these  things,  lest  somebody  might 
find  a  resemblance  between  us  and  Rome? 

If  our  chief  object  is  to  eradicate  every  resem- 
blance to  the  Roman  Church,  the  best  thing  we  can 
do  is  to  become  Hottentots  or  Zulus;  for  probably 
these  people  have  not  much  in  common  with  Rome. 

Perhaps  it  may  be  said  that  the  Church's  doc- 
trine or  ritual  "leads  to  Rome."  We  reply.  Truth 
leads  to  God;  and  nowhere  else.  You  must  first 
impeach  the  creed  of  the  Church,  before  you  can 
assume  that  it  leads  into  error.  No  doubt  the  creed 
can  be  perverted  into  Roman  error;  but  that  is  no 
reason  why  it  should  be,  or  why  we  should  discard 
it.  To  discard  every  doctrine  which  might  be  per- 
verted, would  be  to  discard  much  that  was  in  the 
creed  of  the  early  Church,  and  which  was  per- 
verted. To  hold  nothing  which  can  be  perverted, 
is  to  surrender  the  Christian  Faith  altogether. 
''Men  differ  from  monkeys  in  having  intellects; 
but  the  penalty  of  being  a  man,  is  the  possibility 
that  the  reason  may  be  perverted,  and  the  man 
become  insane.  Does  anybody  argue  from  this, 
that  it  is  better  to  have  no  brain,  and  to  be  a  mon- 
key, rather  than  a  man,  because  then  you  are  in 
no  danger  of  insanity  ?    In  other  words,  that  it  is 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  339 

better  to  have  no  sacramental  truth,  because  then 
you  are  in  no  danger  of  Romanism  ?"  (Bp.  Wil- 
liams of  Connecticut). 

The  Anglican  Church  shows  plainly  wherein 
Rome  has  erred;  and  in  vital  issues,  the  line  be- 
tween the  two  systems  is  clearly  drawn.  No  man 
in  the  American  Church  can  accept  the  papal 
claims  of  Supremacy,  or  Infallibility.  To  speak 
of  nothing  else,  these  two  doctrines  are  like  a 
mighty  wall  between  us  and  Rome;  and  the  man 
who  goes  to  Rome  must  make  a  positive  and  diifi- 
cult  climb  to  get  there.  He  cannot  possibly  ivan- 
der  there  by  a  path  which  leads  him  astray  uncorir 
sciously  to  himself',  that  is,  not  if  his  action  is 
governed  by  facts  and  logic.  Occasionally,  Rome 
acquires  a  certain  fascination  over  men  of  a  senti- 
mental temperament,  who,  shutting  their  eyes  to 
all  historic  considerations,  allow  themselves  to 
drift  into  the  Roman  Church:  but  in  a  very  con- 
siderable number  of  cases,  as  is  well  known,  such 
persons  return  to  their  first  obedience ;  sooner  or 
later  finding  that  after  all,  facts  are  more  potent 
and  practical  and  stubborn  than  sentimental  fan- 
cies; and  the  superficial  attractiveness  of  the 
Roman  Church  does  not  compensate  for  deeply- 
rooted  evils  of  the  Roman  system. 

Before  an  American  Catholic  Churchman  can 
become  a  Roman  Catholic  Churchman,  he  must 
consciously  or  unconsciously  repudiate  certain  con- 
spicuous warnings,  and  violate  certain  well-defined 
principles,  which  the  Catholic  Church  maintains. 


340  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

He  must  choose  between  two  distinct  systems.  He 
follows  his  own  will,  and  he  is  not  "led"  any- 
where. 

That  the  Catholic  doctrine  of  the  American 
Church  does  not  lead  to  Rome,  is  proved  by  several 
important  considerations:  First,  since  the  old 
Catholic  doctrines  of  the  primitive  Church  have 
been  more  generally  taught  in  the  Anglican 
Church,  men  have  been  less  tempted  to  go  to  Rome 
for  such  doctrine,  and  for  Catholic  sacraments ; 
and  so,  the  so-called  "High  Church"  teaching  has 
practically  stopped  perversions  to  Rome.  Occa- 
sially  one  hears  of  some  Churchman  who  goes  to 
Rome;  but  such  perversions  are  nothing  like  as 
numerous  as  they  were  some  years  ago. 

One  has  to  remember  several  things  about  this 
matter  of  Rome's  making  converts.  In  the  first 
place,  Rome  is  careful  to  advertise  every  impor- 
tant convert  she  makes,  in  order  to  convey  the  im- 
pression that  such  converts  are  numerous;  while 
the  Church  never  advertises  her  converts  from 
Rome,  though  as  a  matter  of  fact  she  is  continually 
making  such  converts,  and  the  number  of  them  is 
constantly  increasing.  She  could  if  she  were  in- 
clined, give  an  important  list  of  such  converts, 
which  would  surprise  Protestants  greatly,  were  it 
to  be  published ;  and  if  all  the  Bishops  should  re- 
port their  converts  from  Rome,  we  would  have  a 
large  and  ever  increasing  annual  list  of  converts, 
containing  the  names  of  many  priests.  Moreover, 
when  men  who  go  over  to  Rome  from  us,  discover 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  341 

their  mistake,  and  come  back  again,  Rome  for 
some  reason  does  not  publish  their  return  to  the 
American  Church. 

Then  again,  when  the  Roman  Church  claims  a 
rapid  growth  in  this  country,  it  must  be  remem- 
bered that  such  increase  in  numbers  is  derived 
from  immigration  of  foreign  Roman  Catholics, 
who  are  not  converts ;  but  members  transferred  to 
America,  chiefly  from  Ireland;  and  so  what  the 
Church  gains  here,  she  loses  abroad.  Of  actual 
converts,  the  Roman  Church  makes  comparatively 
few,  when  you  consider  its  vast  organization,  and 
complicated  machinery  for  bringing  men  into  the 
Church. 

Then,  too,  if  Catholic  doctrine  leads  toward 
Rome,  how  does  it  happen  that  all  the  best  modern 
books  written  against  Roman  errors,  have  been 
writen  by  High  Churchmen?  As  for  example, 
Gore's  "Roman  Catholic  Claims,"  Carter's  "Let- 
ters on  the  Roman  Questions,"  Puller's  "Primitive 
Saints  and  the  See  of  Rome,"  Ewer's  "Roman- 
ism, Protestantism,  and  Catholicity,"  Littledale's 
"Plain  Reasons,"  Seymour's  "Papal  Claims," 
Pusey's  "Eirenicon,"  and  a  host  of  others.  So 
that  if  a  Protestant  sectarian  wants  to  contend  with 
Rome,  he  has  to  borrow  our  weapons  to  use  in  the 
contest. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  so  far  from  it  being  true 
that  the  teaching  of  the  American  Church  is  Ro- 
mish, or  leads  toward  Rome,  the  exact  reverse  is  the 
truth.     For  example:    Suppose  a  Protestant  stud- 


342  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

ies  Church  history,  and  the  Holy  Scriptures,  and 
discovers  that  our  Lord  did  found  one  Church, 
which  was  to  last  always,  and  which  therefore  ex- 
ists to-day ;  and  which  teaches  certain  tru.ths  which 
Protestantism  neglects  or  repudiates.  Suppose 
that  such  a  man  is  looking  for  the  Church  of  his- 
tory; the  Catholic  Church  of  the  Apostles'  Creed. 
The  Protestant  sects  cannot  help  him,  because  they 
deny  the  existence  of  any  such  Church,  and  admit 
that  they  themselves  are  new  bodies.  Suppose  a 
Roman  Catholic  gets  hold  of  him.  He  teaches 
him  the  Church  of  Rome  is  Catholic,  and  holds 
Catholic  truth ;  and  what  is  more,  he  proves  his 
case.  But  the  Roman  Catholic  so  cleverly  mixes 
Roman  error  with  this  Catholic  teaching,  that  he 
makes  the  two  things  seem  identical  to  the  poorly 
instructed  Protestant ;  and  so  he  accepts  both,  un- 
der the  impression  that  he  is  accepting  Catholic 
truth,  and  goes  over  to  Rome. 

Now  suppose  that  an  American  Churchman 
found  a  Protestant  in  search  of  the  old  Catholic 
Church  of  history.  He  would  teach  him  that  the 
Anglican  Church  is  Catholic,  and  holds  Catholic 
doctrine,  and  what  is  more,  he  would  prove  his 
case.  But  he  would  also  show  that  the  papal 
claims  of  supremacy  and  infallibility  were  false, 
and  unhistoric ;  and  that,  therefore,  to  be  a  Cath- 
olic in  the  primitive  sense  of  the  word,  the  man 
should  belong  to  the  American  Church ;  and  so  the 
man  is  saved  from  Rome,  whereas  a  Protestant 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  343 

could  not  have  saved  him  or  satisfied  him,  or  have 
done  anything  with  him. 

This  is  not  a  mere  theoretical  supposition,  but 
it  has  been  the  actual  experience  of  a  great  num- 
ber of  men ;  who,  having  become  dissatisfied  with 
the  Protestant  system,  have  searched  for  the  old 
Church,  and  have  found  it,  to  their  surprise  per- 
haps, in  the  American  Church,  Avhich  gave  them 
the  Catholic  Faith,  and  Catholic  Sacraments,  by 
Catholic  authority ;  and  so  kept  them  from  accept- 
ing these  things,  together  with  Roman  error,  in  the 
Roman  Church. 

This  is  why  the  Anglican  Church  is  the  only 
secure  bulwark  against  Rome,  and  it  is  the  ex- 
planation of  Rome's  cordial  dislike  of  Anglicans. 

The  constant  assertion  of  the  Catholic  char- 
acter of  the  American  Church  is  in  the  line  of  the 
strongest  possible  defence  against  Rome,  in  the 
great  battle  of  the  future  between  Catholicity  and 
Roman  Catholicity.  To  assert  and  to  prove  your 
assertion  that  there  is  in  this  country  an  American 
Catholic  Church,  is  to  stamp  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church,  by  a  simple  contrast  of  names,  as  being 
Roman,  foreign,  Italian,  and  alien  to  Americans ; 
and  is,  in  just  so  far,  to  save  men  from  the  mis- 
take of  looking  to  Rome  for  truth  and  guidance. 

The  mere  fact  that  the  vindication  of  the  Cath- 
olicity of  the  Anglican  Church  is  so  largely  due  to 
those  who  are  called  "High  Churchmen"  or  Ritu- 
alists, men  who  have  been  suspected  of  Romish 
tendencies,  is  proof  positive  that  they  have  done 


344  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

more  to  meet  and  defeat  Rome  on  her  own  ground, 
than  all  the  Protestant  sects  put  together.  The 
very  best  a  Protestant  can  do,  is  to  attack  certain 
false  doctrines  held  by  Rome,  and  to  condemn  what 
he  calls  its  superstition;  and  then,  if  a  Roman 
turns  on  him,  and  says,  'Your  Church  is  nothing 
but  a  man-made  sect,  without  authority  to  teach 
anything,  true  or  false,"  the  Protestant  is  power- 
less to  vindicate  his  position.  He  has  not  the  van- 
tage ground  of  Catholic  orders  and  the  Catholic 
Faith  from  which  he  can  reply  to  Rome,  on  the 
basis  she  herself  assumes. 

Rome's  power  to-day,  and  for  the  future,  lies 
in  her  magnificent  system,  her  unity  of  belief  and 
organization,  and  her  habit  of  speaking  with  as- 
sumed authority.  What  have  a  lot  of  disorganized 
sects,  which  cannot  agree  about  any  one  doctrine, 
got,  with  which  to  meet  such  a  power?  Though 
they  may  have  some  truth  on  their  side,  they  recog- 
nize no  one  teaching  authority,  and  all  Church  his- 
tory is  against  their  position,  as  man-made  sects. 

It  is  a  favorite  method  with  Protestants  to  rep- 
resent that  the  American  Church  is  torn  with  in- 
ternal dissensions  concerning  ritual;  that  she  is 
drifting  toward  a  terrible  crisis,  and  ultimate  dis- 
ruption. But  this  is  just  about  as  true  as  it  would 
be  to  say,  that  because  there  is  an  occasional  dis- 
turbance on  some  Western  reservation,  the  whole 
United  States  was  torn  with  dissensions,  and  was 
drifting   toward    rebellion    and    internecine   war. 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  345 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  great  mass  of  American 
Churchmen  know  little  or  nothing  of  controversies 
about  ritual;  and  attend  to  their  own  business, 
without  misrepresenting  their  neighbors.  The 
whole  principle  and  status  of  ritual  in  the  Amer- 
ican Church  was  vindicated  years  ago. 

Occasional  disputes  there  are;  but  such  dis- 
putes are  merely  incidental,  in  the  process  of  the 
restoration  of  some  things  the  Puritan  innovators 
cast  out  of  the  Church,  which  belonged  to  her 
ancient  heritage;  and  the  great  mass  of  so-called 
"Ritualists,"  are  law-abiding  and  hard-working 
men,  who  would  sooner  die  than  be  disloyal  to  the 
Church,  or  repudiate  Catholic  authority,  or  intro- 
duce Roman  error ;  and  who,  strange  to  say,  using 
ritual,  are  most  ready  to  agree  that  its  use  is  of 
much  less  consequence  than  are  many  other  things 
in  the  Church's  work. 

The  marvellous  thing  is,  not  that  there  has  been 
an  occasional  controversy  and  conflict  of  opinion 
in  the  Church  about  matters  of  ritual  and  doctrine, 
but  that  after  the  Puritan  movement  had  wrought 
havoc  in  the  Church,  and  had  trained  generation 
after  generation  in  ignorance  or  hatred  of  the 
Church's  historic  position,  the  whole  process  of 
reaffirming  the  Church's  old  Catholic  Prayer  Book 
doctrine,  and  the  restoration  of  her  ancient  Cath- 
olic customs,  should  have  gone  on  so  quietly,  so 
persistently,  and  so  almost  imiversally,  as  it  has 
for  the  past  sixty  years,  leavening  the  whole  An- 


346  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

glican  Church  from  one  end  to  the  other,  as  if  the 
Holy  Spirit  were  behind  the  work,  moulding  the 
minds  of  men  to 'know  and  to  do  His  will.  One 
great  reason  whj  Churchmen  believe  in  the  Cath- 
olic theory  of  the  Church,  and  in  the  Catholicity 
of  the  American  Church,  is  that  the  restoration 
of  Catholic  teaching  and  practice,  both  in  England 
and  America,  has  been  accompanied  by  the  great- 
est revival  of  spiritual  life  the  Church  has  ever 
known.  To  assume  that  any  such  spiritual  re- 
vival could  possibly  be  the  product  of  the  intro- 
duction of  error,  or  the  institution  of  a  foreign 
ritual  use,  and  nothing  more,  is  of  course  absurd 
in  the  extreme. 

We  believe  that  the  great  issue  of  the  future 
will  not  be  between  the  Koman  Church  and  the 
Protestant  sects,  nor  between  Anglo-Catholics  and 
the  Protestant  sects;  but  between  the  Anglo-Cath- 
olic  Church  and  the  Roman  Catholic  Church ;  and 
so,  as  time  goes  on,  Protestants  will  make  the  sur- 
prising discovery,  that  the  so-called  Episcopal 
Church  is  the  only  religious  body  in  the  United 
States  of  America,  competent  and  able  to  meet 
Rome  on  her  own  ground,  and  to  defeat  her  where- 
in she  is  strongest;  simply  because  the  American 
Church  historically  and  doctrinally  represents 
primitive  Catholicity,  which  the  Protestant  sects 
have  discarded,  and  which  Rome  has  perverted. 
If  Protestants  are  afraid  of  Rome,  we  say  to  them. 
Your  divisions  make  you  an  easy  prey  to  Rome. 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  347 

Come  to  "US ;  unite  under  the  old  flag,  and  we  will 
put  weapons  in  your  hands  which  you  have  not  got, 
and  which  alone  will  be  effectual.  You  are  scat- 
tered and  disorganized;  the  best  you  can  do  is  to 
conduct  a  guerilla  warfare  against  Rome's  serried 
ranks.  Become  Catholics,  unite  with  the  twenty 
millions  of  Anglican  Catholics,  and  the  eighty 
millions  of  Greek  Catholics,  and  we  will  advance 
all  along  the  line  to  battle  for  the  truth,  against 
Roman  encroachments  and  Roman  error ;  and  God, 
who  loves  tinith,  will  give  us  the  victory. 


CHAPTER  XXIII 


CONCLUSION 


771  E  HAVE  now  completed  our  arguments  for 
W  the  Catholicity  of  the  Church,  and  our  at- 
tempt to  set  forth  plainly  the  great  principles  of 
Catholic  Churchmanship,  which  make  the  Church 
what  she  is.  If  the  inferences  which  have  been 
drawn  from  the  argument  are  justifiable,  and  the 
data  on  which  the  argument  is  built  are  correct, 
then  we  think  it  logically  follows,  that  it  is  the 
duty  of  every  American  Christian  to  yield  his  per- 
sonal allegiance  to  that  Church  which  has  been 
known  as  the  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United 
States;  because  historically,  it  is  the  Catholic 
Church  of  the  land,  in  distinction  from  the  Prot- 
estant sects,  which  are  self-created,  and  from  the 
Roman  Church,  which  is  alien  in  its  organization 
and  uncatholic  in  some  points  of  doctrine.  We 
believe  that  in  the  American  Church,  a  Christian 
has  the  best  opportunity  of  knowing  the  truth ; 
because  it  holds  the  old  anchorages  of  the  Faith, 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  349 

in  the  Bible  as  interpreted  by  the  Fathers,  and  the 
Creed  which,  substantially  as  we  have  it  now,  has 
been  taught  everywhere  since  the  second  century. 
Certainty  never  can  be  found  in  a  Protestantism 
which  depends  on  individual  interpretation  of  the 
Holy  Scriptures  for  its  conclusions,  nor  in  the  sup- 
posed infallible  announcements  of  one  man  who 
cuts  himself  off  from  the  witness  of  the  Church. 

Catholicity  is  neither  Protestant  nor  Roman; 
and  we  believe  that  the  American  Church  best  rep- 
resents it  to  the  American  people,  and  can  give  the 
best  assurance  that  in  it,  Christians  can  find  all 
reasonable  certainty  of  knowing  God's  will,  and 
of  receiving  His  grace  and  truth. 

!N^ow  the  fact  must  be  steadily  faced,  that  how- 
ever much  grace  and  truth  a  man  may  think  that 
he  has  received  in  the  Protestant  denomination  to 
which  he  has  belonged,  he  cannot  be  sure  that  he 
has  received  all  the  grace,  and  all  the  truth,  God 
w^Us  to  give  him,  unless  he  receives  it  in  the 
Church,  which  the  Lord  Himself  creates,  and  at 
the  hands  of  those  whom  the  Lord  Himself  sends, 
to  teach  and  minister  sacraments  in  His  Is"ame, 
and  by  His  authority. 

Granting  everything  that  can  possibly  be  said 
in  favor  of  the  Protestant  system  and  the  personal 
religious  experience  of  Protestants,  the  fact  re- 
mains, that  out  of  the  Catholic  Church  there  is  no 
certainty  of  obeying  the  Lord's  full  will.  The 
certainty  of  believing  in  Christ,  and  the  certainty 


350  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

of  being  blessed  by  such  belief,  is  one  thing;  but 
the  certainty  of  fully  obeying  His  will,  in  obey- 
ing those  whom  He  sends,  is  quite  another  thing ; 
and  while  Protestantism  may  give  the  one  kind  of 
certainty,  it  does  not,  and  cannot,  give  the  other. 
If  Christ  Himself  creates  one  Church,  ordains  and 
commissions  one  ministry,  then  the  position  of  any 
substitute  for  these  things  must  at  best  be  utterly 
uncertain,  not  to  say  illegitimate;  and  to  admit 
that  the  Lord  has  created  a  Church  which  exists 
to-day,  is  to  admit  the  obligation  of  finding  and 
submitting  to  that  Church,  simply  because  the 
Lord  is  the  Son  of  God,  and  His  words  and  work 
cannot  be  set  aside  by  any  individual  opinion. 
We  have  proved,  as  we  think,  that  the  Lord  did 
found  one  Church,  and  that  that  Church  exists 
to-day  and  teaches  the  Gospel  truth;  and  until 
these  facts  have  been  disproved,  the  obligation  to 
find  and  submit  to  the  Catholic  Church,  cannot  be 
evaded  in  any  way. 

It  happens  not  infrequently,  that  a  person  may 
be  more  or  less  impressed  by  the  arguments  sup- 
porting the  claims  of  the  Church,  and  yet  feel  that 
the  Church  itself,  as  it  presents  itself  to  him  in  his 
own  community,  is  unattractive.  He  sees  it  merely 
from  the  outside;  he  hears  the  popular  gossip 
about  it;  he  notices  local  defects  in  the  working 
of  its  system,  or  disagreements  among  its  mem- 
bers. Even  the  claims  of  the  Church  may  be  so 
set  forth  as  to  seem  hard  and  repellent. 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  331 

But  we  reply,  as  one  did  of  old,  in  answer  to 
the  question,  "Can  any  good  thing  come  out  of 
Nazareth?"  "Come  and  see"  for  yourself.  Bring 
yourself  in  contact  with  the  Church,  attend  its  serv- 
ices, try  to  understand  its  teaching,  make  the  test 
a  matter  of  your  own  experience ;  and  you  will  not 
be  disappointed.  You  will  find  human  nature, 
and  human  defects  in  the  Church;  but  you  will 
also  find  abundant  evidence  of  the  divine  life, 
which  makes  her  what  she  is.  A  perfect  under- 
standing of  the  Church  mil  not  come  at  once,  or 
suddenly.  It  takes  time  and  patience  for  old 
doubts  to  lose  their  hold,  and  old  habits  of  thought 
to  readjust  themselves  and  adapt  themselves  to 
new  ideas ;  but  as  time  goes  on,  all  these  perplexi- 
ties gradually  disappear.  You  must  remember 
that  the  Church  has  received  many  thousands  of 
converts,  who  were  brought  up  in  some  Protestant 
sect,  who  have  gone  through  the  experience,  first, 
of  gTeat  prejudice  against  the  Church,  then  of  sur- 
prise and  contempt  for  its  claims,  then  of  curiosity 
and  interest  as  they  began  to  study,  then  of  per- 
plexity at  the  wealth  of  new  thoughts  in  conflict 
with  former  impressions,  then  of  slow  readjust- 
ment of  ideas,  and  then,  finally,  of  deep  and  last- 
ing satisfaction,  in  the  ever-growing  conviction 
that  in  the  Church  they  have  foimd  the  truth  of 
which  they  were  in  search;  certain  of  it,  as  they 
never  have  been  before.  Thousands  of  converts 
are  ready  to  testify  to  the  truth  of  just  this  ex- 


352  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

perience.  You  cannot  be  argued  into  loving  any- 
body. Love  is  the  fruit  of  personal  intimacy; 
and  you  cannot  learn  to  love  the  Church,  until, 
you  know  it,  not  as  an  outsider,  but  as  a  devout 
learner ;  and  then  as  a  devout  communicant  at  her 
altars.  The  requirements  of  the  Church  from  one 
entering  it,  are  very  simple.  The  Church  recog- 
nizes every  properly  baptized  person  as  being  al- 
ready a  Christian,  and  a  member  of  herself;  and 
she  requires  Confirmation,  not  to  make  the  man  a 
member  of  the  Church,  but  to  give  him  gifts  of 
grace  he  has  not  yet  received. 

The  Church  requires  no  great  profession  of 
faith;  but  trusts  that  one's  whole  life  in  the 
Church  will  be  a  continuous  growth  in  knowledge 
of  divine  things,  and  the  Catholic  Faith.  In  com- 
ing into  the  Church,  you  give  up  nothing  you  have 
held  before,  no  gospel  truth  which  has  been  dear 
to  you.  You  merely  open  your  heart  and  mind  to 
the  teaching  of  the  Church;  to  wider  ranges  of 
truth  than  you  have  held ;  truths  which  are  neces- 
sary to  make  those  you  already  hold,  entire  and 
complete. 

If,  at  first,  the  services  of  the  Church  seem 
strange  and  unfamiliar,  remember  that  no  educa- 
tional system  can  be  comprehended  at  a  glance; 
and  that  one  great  beauty  of  the  Church  system  is, 
that  it  is  educational  as  well  as  devotional;  and 
that  for  the  oldest  communicant  there  is  always 
something  yet  to  learn  in  the  liturgical  system  of 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  353 

worship,  by  which  he  is  led  on  from  one  great 
truth  to  another.  And  yet  the  elemental  knowl- 
edge required  for  following  the  services,  is  very 
simple ;  one  very  soon  feels  at  home  in  a  liturgical 
service. 

Probably  the  feeling  that  most  frequently 
makes  people  hesitate  about  coming  into  the 
Church,  even  after  they  become  convinced  of  the 
truth  of  its  claims,  is,  that  they  will  thereby  seem 
to  question  or  to  reflect  unpleasantly  upon  the 
Christian  character  of  the  members  of  the  denomi- 
nation to  which  they  have  belonged;  or  to  repudi- 
ate the  truth  and  grace  they  believed  they  have 
received,  in  that  denomination,  in  the  past. 

But  why  should  anyone  have  this  feeling? 
Surely  we  are  never  called  upon  to  deny  that  any 
baptized  man  is  a  Christian,  nor  can  it  ever  be 
necessary  for  us  to  repudiate  or  to  ignore  the  fact 
that  God  has  given  us  grace  and  truth  in  the  past. 
When  a  man  comes  into  the  Church,  he  does  not 
deny  that  that  sect  he  leaves  is  just  what  it  claims 
to  be.  It  is  a  voluntary  association  of  men,  for 
religious  purposes.  Its  ministers  convert  men, 
and  help  them  to  lead  good  lives,  and  preach  more 
or  less  of  the  Church's  faith.  While  they  claim 
that  they  are  ministers  of  the  Gospel,  they  would 
be  the  first  to  deny  that  they  are  priests ;  or  that 
their  sacraments  are  channels  of  grace;  or  that 
their  own  particular  sect  existed  before  the  Refor- 
mation as  an  organized  body.     Surely  they  cannot 


354  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

denj  that  thej  teach  on  the  principle  of  individual 
interpretation  of  the  Scriptures. 

So  the  Church  affirms  nothing  concerning  them 
which  they  do  not  practically  admit  for  them- 
selves; and  the  Church  freely  admits  that  they 
often  teach  much  truth,  and  that  their  members 
show  unmistakable  evidence  of  the  work  of  God's 
grace  in  their  hearts  and  in  their  Christian  char- 
acters; often  putting  to  shame  the  inconsistent 
lives  of  communicants  of  the  Church. 

Sometimes  a  man  is  deterred  from  entering  the 
Church  by  the  opposition  of  his  own  family,  or 
his  friends,  who  would  be  hurt  or  alienated  by  his 
change  of  Church  relations.  This  no  doubt  is 
very  trying ;  but  after  all,  in  a  matter  of  such  im- 
mense importance,  every  man  must  act  for  him- 
self, as  his  conscience  and  judgment  dictate,  with- 
out regard  to  the  scruples  of  others.  And  then, 
in  a  large  majority  of  cases,  such  opposition  is 
based  on  a  misunderstanding  of  the  Church  itself, 
which  can  in  time  be  explained  away;  or  at  any 
rate,  as  time  goes  on,  such  bitter  feeling  dies  out 
of  itself  and  is  forgotten. 

If  the  opposition  and  misunderstanding  of 
one's  friends  is  hard  to  bear,  as  no  doubt  it  is, 
then  one  can  remember  that  it  is  exactly  what  our 
Lord  Himself  said  would  occur,  when  men  came 
into  His  Kingdom.  The  opposition  of  Protestant 
sectarian  prejudice  to  the  Church,  is  often  wonder- 
fully like  the  opposition  the  Church  encountered 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  355 

from  the  world  in  early  apostolic  days;  and  men 
who  come  into  the  Church,  must  meet  and  bear  it 
for  the  sake  of  Him  who  dwells  in,  and  sanctifies 
the  Church,  and  gave  Himself  for  it;  and  en- 
deavor to  show  by  their  patience  and  gentleness  of 
bearing,  that  the  hatred  of  Protestants  is  unde- 
served. 

Sometimes  a  man  hesitates  about  coming  into 
the  Church,  merely  because  it  seems  like  such  a 
great  step  to  take ;  and  without  any  other  tangible 
reason,  defers  the  matter  from  time  to  time.  But 
generally,  when  the  man  does  finally  come,  and 
discovers  what  a  help  and  comfort  the  Church  is 
to  him,  he  greatly  regrets  that  he  did  not  enter 
it,  long  before. 

Again,  a  person  will  sometimes  say,  "The 
Church  interests  and  attracts  me ;  but  it  is  so  dif- 
ferent from  anything  to  which  I  have  been  accus- 
tomed. It  would  be  dreadful  if,  after  I  had  been 
confirmed,  I  should  find  that  I  had  made  a  mis- 
take." 

Well,  perhaps  the  fact  that  the  Church  makes 
many  thousands  of  converts  from  the  Protestant 
sects,  every  year,  and  that  very  few  return,  and 
that  they  seem  to  be  happy  and  contented  in  the 
Church,  ought  to  be  reassuring  as  to  the  danger 
of  disappointment. 

It  is  not  to  be  regretted  that  men  often  find 
their  way  into  the  Church  by  a  slow  process,  which 
involves  overcoming  many  objections  and  preju- 


356  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

dices.  In  the  first  place,  the  Church  wants  men 
who  become  Catholic  from  conviction,  because  they 
believe  that  the  claims  of  the  Church  are  true ;  and 
not  men  who  become  "Episcopalians"  because  they 
like  a  liturgical  service,  and  bring  with  them  all 
their  sectarian  narrowness  and  prejudice.  And 
secondly,  the  man  who  becomes  a  Catholic  intelli- 
gently, will  derive  a  thousand  times  more  comfort 
and  help  and  inspiration  from  the  Church,  than 
he  would  if  he  came  ignorantly,  and  as  a  matter 
of  taste,  and  thought  of  the  Church  merely  as  the 
most  respectable  sect.  Some  of  the  most  devoted 
Churchmen  in  the  Church,  are  those  who  became 
Churchmen  after  a  long  struggle,  and  at  the  ex- 
pense of  some  self-sacrifice. 

Occasionally  we  meet  a  person  who  finds  it  a 
very  easy  matter  to  make  a  change  in  his  ecclesi- 
astical relations,  who  moves  about  from  one  de- 
nomination to  another,  apparently  led  by  no  better 
motive  than  taste,  or  the  influence  of  friends,  or 
the  attractions  of  some  special  preacher  or  form  of 
worship.  But  to  most  thoughtful  persons,  the  act 
of  leaving  one  religious  body  and  entering  another 
must  be  a  serious  matter,  which  can  take  place 
only  after  careful  and  prayerful  study  of  all  the 
issues  involved.  Such  persons,  even  when  they 
have  come  to  believe  that  a  change  is  a  matter  of 
duty,  find  it  exceedingly  difficult  to  make  it  in  the 
face  of  inherited  prejudices  and  old  associations, 
whose  power  is  still  very  strong. 

Such  a  change  is  never  justifiable,  unless  the 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  357 

person  who  enters  upon  it,  feels  very  sure  that  in 
the  Church  to  which  he  goes,  he  will  be  better  able 
to  obey  God's  will,  and  more  sure  of  receiving  His 
truth  and  His  grace.  These  questions  must  come 
first,  before  any  question  of  mere  personal  prefer- 
ence or  expediency ;  and  the  final  decision  must  rest 
on  the  answer  which  one  can  honestly  give  to  them. 
So  after  all,  the  whole  matter  resolves  itself  into 
a  question  of  personal  loyalty  to  the  Lord  Christ ; 
for  membership  in  the  Church  which  He  creates, 
and  which  He  sends  to  represent  Him,  must  neces- 
sarily be  a  bounden  duty;  while  connection  with 
any  man-made,  voluntary  association,  never  can 
be  a  duty,  nor  can  it  be  a  substitute  for  such 
membership. 

If  the  conviction  of  this  truth  suggests  itself  to 
any  one  who  has  read  this  argument,  let  him  not 
put  it  aside,  until  he  has  given  it  such  prayerful 
and  careful  thought  and  consideration  as  it  de- 
serves. The  Holy  Spirit  leads  men  as  He  wills; 
silently  and  gently.  He  coerces  no  one;  and  it  is 
not  difficult  to  resist  His  leading;  but  it  may  re- 
sult in  great  loss  to  the  soul  which  turns  away 
from  Him. 

May  the  Holy  Spirit  take  away  from  us,  all 
pride  and  prejudice;  and  open  our  hearts  to  re- 
ceive what  He  would  teach  us,  and  give  us  the 
strength  and  courage,  to  follow  where  He  leads  the 
way;  and  if  there  is  anything  in  this  book  which 
is  false,  or  contrary  to  His  will,  may  He  blot  it 
out  of  our  memories,  and  pardon  him  who  \vrote  it ! 


APPENDIX  A 

EOMAN   OBJECTIONS   TO  THE  VALIDITY   OF  ANGLICAN   ORDERS 

ROMAN  Churchmen  commonly  make  five  objections  to 
the  validity  of  Anglican  Orders,  asserting  First,  that 
Archbishop  Parker's  consecration  never  took  place, 
because  a  certain  document  among  many  attesting  it,  is 
missing.  Second,  that  Parker  went  through  a  parody  of 
consecration  at  an  inn  in  London,  called  the  Nag's  Head, 
at  the  hands  of  an  apostate  monk,  who  in  turn  was  con- 
secrated by  Parker.  Third,  that  Barlow,  Parker's  chief 
consecrator,  had  never  been  consecrated,  because  an  entry 
of  his  consecration  is  absent  from  Cranmer's  Archiepiscopal 
register.  Fourth,  that  the  formula  used  in  Parker's  con- 
secration was  insufficient  to  confer  valid  orders.  And  Fifth, 
that  the  ordinal  is  deficient  in  expressed  intention. 

In  order  to  answer  these  objections  satisfactorily,  it 
would  be  necessary  to  produce  a  mass  of  evidence  which 
would  fill  a  large  volume;  and  it  is  much  simpler  to  refer 
the  reader  to  such  works  as  Denny's  "Anglican  Orders  and 
Jurisdiction,"  Haddan's  "Apostolic  Succession  in  the  Church 
of  England,"  Mortimer's  "Catholic  Faith  and  Practice,'' 
The  "Response  of  the  Archbishops  of  England  to  the  Letter 
of  Leo  XIII.,"  "The  Priest's  Prayer  Book"  on  Anglican 
Orders,  and  several  others,  in  which  these  questions  are 
treated  somewhat  at  length,  and  thoroughly. 

In  regard  to  Archbishop  Parker's  consecration,  the 
facts  were  as  follows:  He  was  nominated  to  the  see  of 
Canterbury,  elected  by  the  Dean  and  Chapter  of  the  Metro- 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  359 

politan  Church  of  Christ  (in  accordance  with  a  conge  d' 
elire  dated  July  18th,  1559)  on  the  Ist  of  August.  The 
election  was  confirmed  Dec.  9th,  1559,  by  four  Bishops, 
Barlow,  Scory,  Hodgkin,  and  Coverdale.  A  deed  certi- 
fying this  still  exists  in  Parker's  register.  Eight  days 
after,  Dec.  17th,  Parker  was  consecrated  in  Lambeth 
Chapel  by  these  same  Bishops,  according  to  the  Edwardine 
Ordinal  of  1552,  all  four  Bishops  laying  their  hands  on 
his  head,  and  all  repeating  the  consecrating  formula. 
Parker  was  duly  enthroned,  and  did  homage  as  Arch- 
bishop in  March  following,  and  on  the  21st  of  March  the 
Queen  issued  the  usual  mandate  for  the  restitution  of  the 
temporalities  of  the  see  to  Parker.  Parker's  register  gives 
the  records  in  full,  connected  with  his  consecration. 

There  is  a  long  series  of  documents,  letters,  and  inci- 
dental references,  which  go  to  prove  the  fact  of  Parker's 
consecration;  and  among  them  is  the  register  of  the  fact  in 
the  archives  of  Lambeth,  written  in  the  same  hand  as  the 
registers  of  Cranmer  and  Pole,  and  attested  by  the  same  No- 
taries Public  as  Pole's  own  record;  also  a  contemporary 
copy  of  a  part  of  this  register,  in  the  State  Paper  office; 
also  another  copy  in  the  Library  of  Corpus  Christi  College, 
Cambridge;  also  Parker's  autograph  notebook  in  the  same 
Library,  mentioning  the  consecration  as  occurring  Dec.  17th, 
1559.  The  diary  of  Henry  Machyn,  the  Zurich  letters, 
and  other  papers,  furnish  a  mass  of  incidental  testimony 
which  is  all  the  stronger  because  it  is  incidental. 

Most  reputable  Koman  Churchmen  have  discarded  the 
famous  Nag's  Head  fable,  and  it  is  unnecessary  to  speak 
of  it. 

But  supposing  Parker's  consecration  was  invalid,  the 
succession  would  not  be  lost,  because  three  of  Parker's  con- 
secrators.  Barlow,  Hodgkin,  and  Scory  united  with  him 
subsequently  in  the  consecration  of  four  Bishops,  through 
whom  the  succession  was  transmitted.  But  again,  suppos- 
ing the  succession  was  actually  lost,  it  certainly  was  re- 
stored in  the  person  of  Laud,  Archbishop  of  Canterbury, 
in  whom  were  united  the  Irish,  Italian,  and  English  lines. 
The  registry  of  Barlow's  consecration  is  missing,  though 
all  the  other  documents  attesting  his  consecration  are  in 
evidence.     But  supposing  he  had  not  been  consecrated;   he 


360  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

was  only  one  of  four  Bishops  who  acted  together  in  the 
consecration  of  Parker,  all  of  whom  laid  on  their  hands 
and  recited  the  consecrating  words,  and  all  of  whom  were 
consecrators. 

The  objections  which  Romans  make  to  the  Anglican 
Ordinal  would  not  only  also  invalidate  the  Roman  Orders, 
but  would  also  nullify  the  validity  of  Holy  Orders  through- 
out the  Christian  Church  for  the  first  thousand  years; 
and  so  they  prove  far  too  much,  if  they  prove  anything  at 
all.  For  if  the  words  used  to  ordain  Bishops  were  in- 
sufficient, because  they  did  not  specify  that  the  man  conse- 
crated was  to  be  a  Bishop,  we  reply  that  neither  did  the 
Roman  form  of  consecration  contain  any  such  words  for 
many  centuries;  and  that  the  only  sacraments  which  by 
divine  ruling  are  tied  to  fixed  forms  of  expression,  are 
Baptism  and  the  Holy  Eucharist.  Again,  Romans  object 
that  the  English  Ordinal  does  not  expressly  confer  any 
power  to  offer  the  Eucharistic  Sacrifice  in  ordination; 
but  we  reply  that  such  power  is  involved  in  the  power  to 
administer  the  sacraments,  which  is  given  in  the  service; 
and  moreover,  the  power  to  offer  sacrifice  is  not  expressed 
in  the  Ordination  of  the  Greek  Church,  which  the  Roman 
Church  recognizes  as  having  valid  orders,  and  no  express 
recognition  of  such  power  was  in  the  Roman  Ordinal  for 
many  centuries. 

Some  of  the  best  defences  of  Anglican  Orders  have  been 
made  by  Roman  Catholics  themselves,  by  such  men  as  Cour- 
ayer,  Colbert,  Bossuet,  Butler,  Affre,  Tierney,  Portal,  and 
also  by  DoUinger,  who  was  one  of  Rome's  greatest  theo- 
logians before  he  repudiated  the  decree  of  Papal  infallibil- 
ity, and  was  excommunicated. 


APPENDIX  B 


CONFESSION 


TN  the  chapter  on  the  Sacramental  System,  we  found 
that  our  Lord  gave  to  His  Apostles  when  He  ordained 
them,  the  delegated  authority  to  pronounce  absolution 
upon  penitent  sinners,  saying:  "Whose  sins  ye  remit,  they 
are  remitted  unto  them";  and  we  called  attention  to  the 
fact  that  absolution  was  analogous  to  Baptism  "for  the 
remission  of  sins,"  and  as  a  ministerial  act  involved  no 
greater  difficulties  than  Baptism,  by  which  the  benefits  of 
our  Lord's  cleansing  blood  are  applied  to  individual  souls. 
Now  in  these  days  when  the  Church  has  attempted  to  give 
some  practical  force  to  our  Lord's  words,  and  has  assumed 
the  right  to  receive  and  absolve  penitents,  the  thing  has 
been  the  occasion  of  grave  and  bitter  controversy.  Per- 
haps it  may  be  well  for  us  to  try  to  approach  the  subject 
for  a  moment  from  the  standpoint  of  common  sense,  and 
so  far  as  possible,  to  discuss  the  question  on  its  intrinsic 
merits. 

Of  course  the  difficulty  turns  on  the  fact  that  the 
Church  requires  personal  confession  of  sins  before  pro- 
nouncing personal  absolution,  and  confession  of  sin  to  a 
man  is  supposed  to  be  degrading,  demoralizing,  and  contrary 
to  "Protestant  principles."  Perhaps  the  exercise  of  no 
other  function  of  the  priesthood  has  elicited  so  much  acute 
hostility,  and  has  excited  such  groundless  fears,  as  this 
use  of  confession. 

Let  us  stop  for  a  moment,  and  ask  ourselves  a  very 


362  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

simple  question:  Why  should  it  be  thought  perfectly 
proper  for  a  man  to  go  to  his  lawyer,  and  tell  him  his 
business  complications,  or  to  his  physician,  and  tell  him  his 
physical  symptoms;  and  yet  if  he  goes  to  his  clergyman, 
and  tells  him  his  spiritual  difficulties,  which  are  infinitely 
more  important  than  the  others,  the  thing  is  said  to  be  de- 
moralizing and  dangerous? 

Are  we  to  be  allowed  to  have  confidential  relations 
with  professional  men  on  every  other  subject  under  heaven, 
except  those  matters  which  concern  the  salvation  of  our 
immortal  souls?  Apparently  as  long  as  we  confess  our 
sins,  or  our  neighbor's  sins,  to  our  intimate  friends,  the 
thing  is  legitimate  enough;  and  yet  when  confession  of 
our  own  sin  is  made  to  a  priest  of  the  Church,  who  is  bound 
by  the  oath  of  his  office  to  observe  absolute  silence  con- 
cerning what  is  told  him,  and  is  trained  to  deal  with  indi- 
vidual cases  and  to  help  penitents,  such  confession,  for  some 
reason  or  other,  is  condemned  as  dangerous  and  unlawful. 

Sin  is  spiritual  disease;  or  rather  a  complication 
of  very  serious  diseases;  and  for  us  to  assume  that  every 
penitent  knows  how  to  treat  himself  without  telling  his 
symptoms,  or  getting  any  personal  advice,  is  about  as 
reasonable  as  the  assumption  that  every  sick  man  is  com- 
petent to  prescribe  for  himself. 

Moreover,  suppose  that  a  physician  in  a  hospital,  in- 
stead of  going  from  one  patient  to  another,  and  pre- 
scribing individually,  after  a  careful  diagnosis  of  each 
case,  should  mount  a  table  in  the  hospital,  and  read  an 
essay  on  a  suppositious  malady;  and  then  leave  the  patients 
to  discover  if  they  could,  what  is  the  matter  with  them; 
the  physician  thus  delivering  ten,  twenty,  or  a  hundred 
essays,  perhaps,  before  he  happens  to  stumble  on  the 
difficulties  of  any  individual  case.  Then  suppose  this  man 
learns  what  is  the  matter  with  him;  is  he  to  proceed  alone 
to  treat  himself?  If  any  hospital  were  managed  on  any 
such  plan,  no  sane  man  would  trust  himself  under  the  care 
of  its  staff  of  physicians  for  twenty-four  hours. 

When  a  man  is  troubled  and  perplexed  about  some 
legal  difficulties,  he  does  not  go  to  a  law  college,  and  listen 
to  a  course  of  lectures;  he  goes  straight  to  his  lawyer,  and 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  363 

confesses  his  diflSculty,  and  asks  for  the  help  and  advice  he 
needs. 

Now  every  man  who  does  a  priest's  work,  knows  per- 
fectly well  that  a  multitude  of  souls  are  lost  to  the  Church, 
simply  because,  with  the  very  best  of  intentions,  men  get 
confused  and  hopeless  about  themselves;  the  moral  problem 
of  their  lives  is  too  complicated  for  their  solution;  they 
do  not  understand  themselves,  and  their  weaknesses;  and 
in  despair  they  give  up  the  fight,  and  drift  away  from  the 
Church  in  indifference.  If  such  persons  could  only  have 
the  benefit  of  a  good,  wholesome  confession,  and  receive 
the  necessary  advice  and  the  moral  support  of  a  sympathetic 
priest  who  understands  them,  in  a  very  large  majority  of 
cases  such  persons  could  be  saved;  and  perhaps  would 
eventually  grow  in  strength  and  independence  of  character. 
It  is  also  well  known  among  priests  of  the  Church,  that 
there  are  certain  circumstances  of  life  in  which  men  are 
surrounded  with  acute  temptations,  when  the  support  which 
a  confidential  relation  with  a  wise  priest  gives,  becomes 
almost  a  necessity,  if  such  men  are  saved  at  all. 

One  of  the  strongest  forces  in  the  moral  life,  is  personal 
sympathy.  Much  of  the  bitterness  of  the  struggle  with  sin, 
is  due  to  the  loneliness  of  it;  when  its  difficulties,  dangers, 
and  defeats  must  be  sealed  up  in  our  hearts,  unknown  to 
anyone  else.  Men  often  become  so  hungry  for  sympathy, 
that  they  feel  almost  driven  to  confess  their  trouble  to 
some  intimate  friend,  who  can  understand  them  and  sympa- 
thize with  them.  But  surely  the  experience  and  training 
of  a  priest  of  the  Church  fits  him  for  a  more  practical 
sympathy,  and  he  knows  too  much  about  sin,  about  his 
own  sins,  to  feel  anything  but  the  tenderest  pity  and 
sympathy  for  those  who  come  to  him.  There  are  multitudes 
of  men  the  world  over,  who  can  testify  that  a  confidential 
relation  with  some  priest  of  the  Church,  has  been  to  them 
of  inestimable  value  as  a  support,  a  restraint,  and  a  com- 
fort, when  perhaps  without  it  they  would  have  been  utterly 
lost. 

The  Church  values  private  confession  of  sin  in  certain 
cases,  not  merely  because  it  enables  the  penitent  to  receive 
godly  counsel  and  advice,  and  affords  him  the  personal 
sympathy  of  the  priest  to  whom  he  confesses,  but  also,  be- 


364  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

cause  such  confession  is  sometimes  necessary  to  bring  about 
any  realization  of  the  dreadfulness  of  sin,  in  the  mind  of 
the  penitent. 

We  are  constantly  told  that  we  should  confess  our 
sins  to  God;  and  this  is  no  doubt  true;  but  after  all,  it  is 
difficult  for  the  most  devout  person  to  so  thoroughly  realize 
God's  Presence  and  Purity,  that  confession  to  Him  of 
actual  sins  brings  any  very  acute  sense  of  shame  with  it; 
and  so  men  often  confess  freely  to  God,  who  would  shrink 
greatly  from  confessing  those  same  sins  to  a  man;  and  must 
this  not  be  largely  because  when  we  look  at  our  sins  through 
the  eyes  of  another  man,  somehow  we  realize  their  shameful- 
ness  much  more  acutely? 

Certainly  anything  which  deepens  our  sense  of  the 
shame  of  our  sins,  must  be  a  moral  power  in  the  spiritual 
life;  and  a  very  wholesome  medicine,  however  disagreeable 
it  may  be. 

Occasionally  a  man  will  be  so  thoroughly  in  earnest 
that  he  will  long  for  some  special  way  of  manifesting  the 
sincerity  of  his  repentance,  some  act  of  humiliation  before 
God,  by  which  he  can  express  his  unworthiness ;  and  in  such 
case,  confession  satisfies  a  real  want. 

Then  again  many  devout  persons  who  are  sincerely 
penitent  and  have  confessed  their  sins  habitually  to  God, 
still  feel  some  disquieting  doubts  as  to  whether  they  have 
done  all  that  they  ought  to  win  forgiveness;  and  to  such 
persons,  after  personal  confession,  the  absolution  of  the 
Church  comes  with  a  very  grateful  and  reassuring  force; 
because  it  is  positive,  authoritative,  and  definite. 

We  are  frequently  told  that  confession  is  demoralizing, 
both  for  the  penitent  and  for  the  priest.  But  those  who 
make  this  assertion,  in  ninety-nine  cases  ovit  of  a  hundred, 
know  nothing  whatever  about  it  hy  actual  experience; 
and  what  they  say,  or  believe,  is  based  often  on  most  ig- 
norant and  malicious  gossip.  Ask  them  if  they  have  ever 
been  to  confession,  and  they  will  almost  resent  the  ques- 
tion as  an  insult.  Now  suppose  a  man  were  to  attempt 
to  lecture  on  the  subject  of  medicine,  and  should  begin  his 
remarks  by  assuring  his  audience  that  he  had  never 
studied  medicine  first  hand,  had  never  had  any  actual  med- 
ical   practice,    had    never    been    sick    enough    to    go    to    a 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  365 

physician  himself,  and  would  not  go  to  a  physician  if  he 
were  sick;  and  should  then  proceed  to  denounce  the  con- 
fidential relation  between  physicians  and  their  patients, 
as  demoralizing  and  dangerous.  Do  you  suppose  that  the 
man's  audience  would  have  very  much  patience  with  him, 
or  would  think  that  his  word  carried  any  weight  with  it? 
Surely  the  testimony  of  thousands  of  laymen  and  priests, 
the  world  over,  who  have  found  confession  of  inestimable 
help  and  comfort  to  them,  who  are  familiar  with  the 
method  and  results  of  confession,  is  worth  more  in  the 
interests  of  truth,  than  all  the  cavils  of  those  who  know 
nothing  about  it  by  experience.  Doubtless  the  abuse  of 
confession  in  certain  cases  has  resulted  disastrously,  where 
priests  have  been  gross,  untrained,  or  injudicious;  bui  to 
assume  on  this  account  that  any  large  percentage  of  priests 
are  gross,  or  that  confession  of  sin  canno.t  be  made,  or 
heard,  in  anything  but  a  gross  or  vulgar  spirit,  is  mon- 
strously false.  Every  sensible  man  knows  perfectly  well 
that  occasionally  a  man  has  to  do,  see,  and  hear  things, 
in  the  natural  course  of  performing  his  duty,  which  would 
perhaps  be  demoralizing,  if  he  were  to  dwell  on  them  or 
stop  to  let  them  appeal 'to  his  lower  nature.  But  surely 
right-minded  men  can  bring  themselves  into  contact  with 
evil,  in  the  necessary  effort  to  reform  it  or  to  help  the 
offender,  without  suffering  moral  contamination  them- 
selves, or  suggesting  evil  to  others.  If  this  were  not  true, 
then  all  efforts  to  help  and  uplift  men  must  come  to  an  end; 
and  every  gross  man  must  be  left  to  perish  in  his  sin. 
Tlie  best  answer  to  all  this  assertion  of  the  danger  of 
confession,  is  the  counter  assertion,  that  our  Lord  never 
would  have  sent  His  priests  to  represent  Him  in  their 
ministry  to  penitent  souls,  and  have  given  them  a  com- 
mission to  remit  sins,  if  such  intercourse  between  priests 
and  penitents  would  be  dangerous  and  demoralizing. 

Sometimes  it  is  said  that  confession  enfeebles  the 
moral  nature,  and  makes  a  man  weak  and  dependent; 
but  this  certainly  is  not  the  testimony  of  those  who  re- 
sort to  confession.  For  example,  take  the  following  letter 
from  "F.  R.  C.  S.,"  in  "The  Angelus":  "I  should  like  to 
make  a  further  remark  on  the  statement  that  habitual 
confession  results  in  mental  enfecblement.     This  has  been 


366  CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES 

so  repeatedly  stated,  that  no  doubt  a  vast  number  of  people 
believe  it  to  be  a  fact.  But  I  may  fairly  ask  for  some 
evidence.  I  have  never  seen  it  so  stated  by  anyone  who 
has  been  in  the  habit  of  hearing  confessions,  or  by  anyone 
who  habitually  goes  to  confession.  And  I  hold  that  only 
those  who  have  the  experience  are  fit  judges  in  the  matter. 
I  take  my  own  case,  if  you  will  for  a  moment  permit  me 
to  be  an  egoist.  I  am  over  sixty  years  of  age.  For  the 
last  thirty  years  I  have  been  going  to  confession,  some- 
times at  long  intervals,  more  frequently  at  shorter  ones. 
I  am  a  member  of  the  medical  profession,  a  Fellow  of 
my  College,  a  hospital  surgeon,  and  have  attained  some 
repute.  I  judge  myself  to  be  about  the  last  man  to  be 
infected  with  morbid  influences.  My  wife  and  my  grown-up 
children  go  to  confession.  They  none  of  them  seem  to  be 
affected  with  mental  feebleness.  A  vast  number  of  my 
own  friends,  some  in  my  own  profession,  others  lawyers, 
others  hardheaded  men  of  business,  go  to  confession,  and  I 
fail  to  see  the  dreadful  deterioration  which  is  set  forth. 
I  am  an  Alpine  climber,  and  have  the  personal  acquaintance 
of  the  finest  race  of  men,  the  Swiss  guides.  Tliey  are  the 
most  devout  men  I  know,  and  they  all  "go  to  their  duties." 
The  whole  thing  is  a  figment  of  the  brain,  unsupported 
by  a  single  shred  of  evidence.  One  other  thing  I  should  like 
to  state.  In  all  my  long  experience  of  confession,  made 
to  many  priests,  I  can  never  remember  having  one  single 
question  put  to  me.  This  statement  as  to  examination  of 
penitents  is  a  pure  fiction." 

j^ow  every  intelligent  man  who  has  studied  the  his- 
tory of  the  Anglican  Church  for  the  last  half  century, 
must  admit  that  there  has  been  a  wonderful  revival  of 
spiritual  life  and  missionary  energy  throughout  the  Church ; 
and  that  she  has  a  far  stronger  hold  on  her  own  children, 
and  is  far  more  influential  among  all  religious  bodies,  than 
she  was  at  the  beginning  of  this  period.  As  a  matter  of 
fact,  it  has  been  during  just  this  period  that  the  use  of  con- 
fession a  (privilege  long  neglected)  has  been  steadily  in-' 
creasing  among  Anglican  Churchmen,  the  world  over. 

The  question  will  be  asked,  Do  you  believe  that  God 
forgives  sins  without  confession  to  a  priest,  and  if  He 
does,  why  should  one  confess?     We  reply  that  the  Church 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  367 

holds  that  God  forgives  the  sins  of  any  thoroughly  contrite 
man,  without  such  confession;  and  the  Anglo-Catholic 
Church  never  makes  confession  obligatory,  or  a  necessary 
condition  of  communion.  But  surely  one  cannot  limit  the 
ministrations  of  grace  in  the  Church  to  those  things  which 
are  absolutely  necessary  to  salvation,  and  say  that  because 
God  can  save  a  soul  without  confession,  therefore  confession 
has  no  use.    Such  a  position  is  certainly  untenable. 

It  will  be  said  that  confession  of  sin  to  any  man  is 
a  hard  thing  to  expect  of  anyone.  We  reply,  most  certainly 
it  is;  but  it  is  just  because  it  is  a  hard  thing,  and  requires 
some  courage  and  humility,  that  it  is  such  a  thorough  test 
of  penitence,  and  such  a  moral  power,  in  the  spiritual  life. 
Were  it  an  easy  thing,  did  it  involve  no  heart-searching,  no 
facing  of  hidden  sins,  no  humiliating  and  open  acknowl- 
edgement of  weakness  and  shame,  it  would  amount  to  noth- 
ing as  a  discipline  in  the  acquirement  of  self-control  and 
the  upbuilding  of  Christian  character. 

In  the  First  Prayer  Book  of  Edward  VI.,  the  Church 
of  England  set  forth  the  following  declaration,  concerning 
the  use  of  Confession : 

"Such  as  shall  be  satisfied  with  a  general  confession 
are  not  to  be  offended  with  them  that  do  use  to  their 
further  satisfying,  the  auricular  and  secret  confession  to  the 
priest;  nor  those  also  which  think  needful  or  convenient, 
for  the  quietness  of  their  consciences,  particularly  to  open 
their  sins  to  the  priest,  to  be  offended  with  them  that  are 
satisfied  with  their  humble  confession  to  God,  and  the 
general  confession  to  the  Church.  But  in  all  things  to 
follow  and  keep  the  rule  of  charity,  and  every  man  to  be 
satisfied  with  his  o^vn  conscience,  not  judging  other  men's 
minds  or  consciences,  whereas  he  hath  no  warrant  of  God's 
Word  for  the  same." 


BOOKS  QUOTED  IN  THE  TEXT 

Theophilus  Americanus  Wordsworth 

The  Primitive  Church Chapin 

Plain  Footprints   Timlow 

The  Church  for  Americans  Brown 

Plain  Reasons Littledale 

Church  Doctrine  Bible  Truth Sadler 

The  Church  Identified Wilson 

The  Catholic  Religion Staley 

History  of  the  American  Church   McConnell 

What  is  the  Anglican  Church  ? Ewer 

The  Worship  of  the  Old  Covenant Willis 

Turning  Points  of  Church  History Cutis 

The  Philosophy  of  Ritual Gratacap 

Reformation  of  the  Church  of  England Blunt 

The  One  Offering Sadler 

University  Sermons Liddon 

The  Roman  Question Carter 

Roman  Catholic  Claims Core 

Primitive  Saints  and  the  See  of  Rome Puller 

Anglican  Orders  and  Jurisdiction Denny 

A  Churchman's  Life  of  Wesley Urlin 

Notes  on  the  New  Testament Sadler 

The  Priests'  Prayer  Book Yaux  and  Littledale 

Memoirs  of  the  Church White 

The  Gospel  and  Philosophy   Dix 

The  Grace  of  the  Ministry Denton 

Reasons  for  Being  a  Churchman Little 

Catholic  Dogma McLaren 

The  Holy  Catholic  Church Ashwell 


CATHOLIC  PRINCIPLES  369 

The  Genesis  of  the  Church Cotterill 

Credentials  of  the  Catholic  Church Bagshawe 

Catholic,  Not  Protestant,  Nor  Roman  Catholic Hall 

History  of  the  American  Church Wilberforce 

Right  to  Use  the  Catholic  Name Greaves 

Romanism,    Protestantism  and  Catholicity Ewer 

Why  I  am  a  Churchman  Hey  gate 

The  Ante-Nicene  Fathers   

Elements  of  Religion Liddon 

The  Church  in  the  Prayer  Book Temple 

Catholic  Faith  and  Practice  Mortimer 

The  Dogmatic  Faith Garbett 

History  of  the  Church Wordsworth 

Doctrine  of  the  Incarnation Wilberforce 

Doctrine  of  the  Holy  Eucharist Wilberforce 

The  Provincial  System  Wilson 

Papal  Claims  Seymour 

Catholic  Versus  Roman Langtry 

History  of  the  M.  E.  Church Bangs 

The  Old  Church  in  the  New  Land Smith 

History  of  the  Church  of  England  Bright 

Annotated  Book  of  Common  Prayer  Blunt 

Antiquities  of  the  Christian  Church Bingham 

An  Exposition  of  the  Creed  Pearson 


SfiKd^Mti 


■yV'f^^'-r^^.-S^       ,^;,-,; 


fl'm  l'?l  Ml'' 1°'°'"^^'  Srmpnary-Sp«fr  Library 


1    1012  01018  8854 


